Received: 11 December 2018 | Accepted: 17 April 2019 DOI: 10.1002/pan3.30 RESEARCH ARTICLE Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans Julia L. Newth1,2,3 Eileen C. Rees1 | Alice Lawrence1 | Ruth L. Cromie1 | John A. Swift4 | | Kevin A. Wood1 | Emily A Strong1 | Jonathan Reeves1 | Robbie A. McDonald3 1 Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, UK Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, UK 2 3 Environment and Sustainability Institute, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, UK John Swift Consultancy – Higher Wych, Malpas, Cheshire, UK 4 Correspondence Julia L. Newth, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK. Email: Julia.Newth@wwt.org.uk Handling editor: Steve Redpath Abstract 1. Recent national and international policy initiatives have aimed to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to lead from ammunition. Despite restrictions, in the UK, lead ammunition remains the most widespread source of environmental lead contamination to which wildlife may be exposed. 2. The risks arising from the use of lead ammunition and the measures taken to mitigate these have prompted intense and sometimes acrimonious discussion between stakeholder groups, including those advancing the interests of shooting, wildlife conservation, public health and animal welfare. 3. However, relatively little is known of the perspectives of individual ammunition users, despite their role in adding lead to the environment and their pivotal place in any potential changes to practice. Using Q‐methodology, we identified the perspectives of ammunition users in the UK on lead ammunition in an effort to bring forward evidence from these key stakeholders. 4. Views were characterised by two statistically and qualitatively distinct perspectives: (a) Open to change—comprised ammunition users that refuted the view that lead ammunition is not a major source of poisoning in wild birds, believed that solutions to reduce the risks of poisoning are needed, were happy to use non‐lead alternatives and did not feel that the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the demise of shooting; and (b) Status quo—comprised ammunition users who did not regard lead poisoning as a major welfare problem for wild birds, were ambivalent about the need for solutions and felt that lead shot is better than steel at killing and not wounding an animal. They believed opposition to lead ammunition was driven more by a dislike of shooting than evidence of any harm. 5. Adherents to both perspectives agreed that lead is a toxic substance. There was consensus that involvement of stakeholders from all sides of the debate was desirable and that to be taken seriously by shooters, information about lead poisoning should come from the shooting community. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2019 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society People and Nature. 2019;00:1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3 | 1 2 | NEWTH ET al. People and Nature 6. This articulation of views held by practitioners within the shooting community presents a foundation for renewing discussions, beyond current conflict among stakeholder and advocacy groups, towards forging new solutions and adaptation of practices. KEYWORDS ammunition, environmental contaminants, hunters, hunting, lead, Q methodology, shooting, waterfowl 1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N sport, pest management and hunting for food. Shooting, therefore, involves heterogeneous communities of participants (Kanstrup, There is international recognition of the risks presented by lead to the 2019). Furthermore, stakeholder groups in discussions about lead health of humans and wildlife (Arnemo et al., 2016; Green & Pain, 2015; extend beyond shooting, encompassing organisations advancing Pain, Cromie, & Green, 2015; Stroud, 2015). Following regulation to wildlife conservation, public health and animal welfare (Cromie et remove lead in the environment from other sources such as paint and al., 2015). This discussion, as played out among membership organi- petrol (Stroud, 2015), recent policies have aimed to reduce the exposure sations and vocal commentators in public arenas, is dominated by a of humans and wildlife to lead from ammunition (IUCN, 2016; Stroud, ‘lead debate’ between those advocating retention of the Status quo 2015; UNEP‐CMS, 2014). Over the last 50 years, lead ammunition (pri- (predominantly shooting and countryside management organisa- marily shot) has been subject to legislative and other forms of regulation tions) and those favouring stricter controls or phasing out of lead in 33 countries world‐wide (Kanstrup, 2019; Kanstrup, Swift, Stroud, ammunition and replacement with non‐toxic alternatives (predomi- & Lewis, 2018; Stroud, 2015). Currently, two countries have total bans nantly wildlife conservation organisations). This ‘lead debate’ has on the use, trade and possession of lead shot: Denmark introduced leg- become polarised in the UK and sits within a wider landscape of mis- islation in 1996 (Kanstrup, 2006) and the Netherlands in 1993 (Avery trust and tension between shooting and conservation organisations, & Watson, 2009). Partial and total restrictions on the use of lead am- despite their holding many conservation goals in common. There munition for hunting have culminated in a range of experiences from may also be a perception that moves to phase out the use of lead different jurisdictions (Kanstrup, 2019). In Denmark, the proposed ban ammunition are ‘anti hunting’ and part of a wider attack on shooting initially received a negative reception from hunters. Resistance was mo- and other legitimate field sports, leading to ratcheting up of regula- tivated by concerns about safety and the quality and expense of the al- tion and restrictions (Cromie et al., 2015; Thomas, 2015). ternatives to lead shot, compounded by tensions between stakeholders As with other environmental conflicts, the ‘lead debate’ has been and a lack of organisational leadership (Kanstrup, 2015, 2019). Hunter characterised by contested interpretations of the scientific evidence attitudes became more positive with a widening appreciation of the en- and can now be regarded as a sociopolitical issue (Arnemo et al., vironmental impacts of lead shot and the introduction of a new gener- 2016). Evidence from the natural sciences alone is often insufficient ation of shot types (Kanstrup, 2019). In the UK, partial restrictions on to resolve conflicts (Haas, 2004; Hulme, 2009; Luks, 1999; Saltelli, the use of lead ammunition, particularly over wetlands and foreshores, Giampietro, Avan, Ambientals, & Autonoma, 2015) and this appears have been introduced to reduce morbidity and mortality of wildlife in to be true in this case (Arnemo et al., 2016). Indeed, Byrd (2002) ar- England in 1999 (HMSO, 1999, 2002a, 2003), Wales in 2002 (HMSO, gues that without addressing the sociopolitical dynamics driving the 2002b), Scotland in 2004 (HMSO, 2004) and Northern Ireland in 2009 public discourse behind such conflicts, interventions based solely on (HMSO, 2009). Despite these restrictions, lead ammunition remains the science are likely to polarise people and result in politically unviable most widespread and common source of environmental lead contami- management plans. The origins of many conflicts are related to val- nation to which wildlife might be exposed in the UK (Pain et al., 2015). ues, changing attitudes and power relations (Raik, Wilson, & Decker, 2008) that have roots in social and cultural history (Redpath et al., 1.1 | The ‘lead debate’ The risks arising from the use of lead ammunition and the measures taken to mitigate these have prompted intense discussion between stakeholder groups in the UK (Newth, Cromie, & Kanstrup, 2015). Shooting is a long‐standing activity with established practices and traditions and is undertaken for a variety of purposes, including 2013). 1.2 | The perspectives of ammunition users Although the ‘lead debate’ could be characterised as an apparently ‘intractable conservation conflict’ (Redpath et al., 2013), played out by large organisations, relatively little is known of the perspectives People and Nature NEWTH ET al. | 3 of individual ammunition users, despite their critical roles in (a) add- the success of guidance and legislation and help guide organisations ing lead to the environment; and (b) adopting, or not adopting, any and commentators participating in debate. Enhanced dialogue may potential changes to practice. Efforts by statutory agencies and prevent misunderstandings about perspectives and motivations of shooting and countryside management organisations to improve those with differing viewpoints and encourage discourse about the user compliance with regulations (e.g. through awareness‐raising issue so that mutually agreeable compromises might be reached activities such as the ‘Use Lead Legally’ campaign) have been largely (Durning, 2005). unsuccessful. Compliance with existing regulation remains gener- Here, using Q‐methodology, we aim to identify the perspectives ally poor in England (e.g. 77% of ducks were shot with lead shot in of ammunition users in the UK in relation to the substance of the winter 2013–2014; Cromie et al., 2015), some 13 years after the ‘lead debate’ in an effort to bring forward evidence from these key introduction of regulations (HMSO, 1999), indicating that at least stakeholders, who have influence over and are most affected by the some shooting participants have not ‘bought‐in’ to the legislation or issue. guidance. The success or otherwise of conservation interventions may depend on whether and how the opinions of relevant individual 2 | M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS stakeholders are understood and catered for (Bennett et al., 2017; Madden & McQuinn, 2014; Redpath et al., 2013) and whether A Q‐study involves a relatively small number of purposively se- or not proposed solutions are perceived as appropriate (Zabala, lected participants (usually 20–40 people) who are asked to rank, in Sandbrook, & Mukherjee, 2018). Understanding the viewpoints and order, a number of opinion statements about a specific topic (Cairns, values of individuals with respect to issues important for conser- 2012). The rankings, known as ‘Q‐sorts’, are then analysed statis- vation has multiple benefits (Curry, Barry, & McClenaghan, 2013; tically using factor analysis to explore patterns or shared perspec- Zabala et al., 2018), including identification of barriers or alignments tives towards a topic. These ‘factors’, or social perspectives, are then (Frantzi, Carter, & Lovett, 2009), improved assessment of the ef- interpreted with the aid of contextual information gained through fectiveness of policy and plans, improvement of public participa- post‐sort interviews with all participants (Cairns, 2012). tion and stakeholder dialogue (Cuppen, Breukers, Hisschemöller, & Bergsma, 2010) and the facilitation of critical reflection (Zabala et al., 2018) as well as an opportunity to resolve contentious issues (Durning, 2005). 2.1 | Constructing the narrative for the debate (the ‘concourse’) A concourse which contains expressions of potentially varied per- 1.3 | Q‐methodology in conservation conflicts spectives of the topic (Webler, Danielson, & Tuler, 2009) was constructed using a ‘semi‐naturalistic approach’ (Cairns, 2012; Robbins Q‐methodology uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative & Krueger, 2000), whereby opinion statements were drawn from techniques to identify and explore subjective attitudes, viewpoints a combination of semi‐structured interviews with seven informed and perspectives on a given topic (Stephenson, 1953; Watts & individuals (Webler et al., 2009) and through review of written Stenner, 2012). It combines the transparency of a structured quan- materials (Stainton Rogers, 1995). The interviewees, all of whom titative technique with the richer understanding of a qualitative ap- were based in the UK, were purposively selected for their consid- proach (Zabala et al., 2018). For contentious issues, Q‐methodology erable professional knowledge of lead ammunition in relation to may facilitate agreeable and compromise policy solutions in several wildlife health, human health and shooting. They were not asked ways. It may help decision‐makers to: (a) clarify issues, through to rank statements for analysis. Written materials that included deeper understanding of the sometimes hidden interests and beliefs the broad subjects of lead ammunition, related impacts on wildlife of stakeholders; (b) identify competing definitions of problems and and humans, associated politics and non‐toxic/non‐lead ammuni- solutions and reveal commonalities between them; and (c) as a con- tion were selected for review. The scope was limited to informa- sequence, forge new solutions (Durning, 2005). Within conservation tion relevant to the UK only. Materials included published papers, conflict scenarios, Q‐methodology has identified shared and oppos- perspectives and reports, articles in shooting and conservation ing discourses relating to the management of large, terrestrial wild- magazines, content from shooting and conservation blogs, web- life (e.g. Bredin, Lindhjem, Van Dijk, & Linnell, 2015; Price, Saunders, sites and forums, texts of international agreements and minutes of Hinchliffe, & McDonald, 2017; Zabala et al., 2018), with the aim of meetings and transcripts of parliamentary debates related to the reaching acceptable solutions. Although some conservation con- issue of lead shot. This multisource approach was used to capture, flicts might be well‐suited to the application of Q‐methodology, such as far as possible, the diversity of opinion and to provide a breadth use remains relatively uncommon and the method has rarely been of personal and organisational perspectives. A total of 243 state- used to explore diversity of viewpoints within potentially hetero- ments written and released between January 2009 and June 2017 geneous stakeholder groups. In this context, Q‐methodology might were selected and constituted the original concourse. The con- help clarify the views of individual stakeholders within the shoot- course was considered complete when the addition of new state- ing community, that is, ammunition users, who are instrumental to ments did not present any new opinions (Cairns, 2012). 4 | NEWTH ET al. People and Nature 2.2 | Constructing the Q‐set The concourse was refined to a manageable number of statements to each other. This was to reduce undue social influence within the sample, thus improving the likelihood that a diversity of views could be captured. (termed the Q‐set; Table 1) so that they could be sorted by the participants in the Q‐sort stage. An unstructured strategic sampling approach was followed to ensure that the variability of the concourse was captured by the Q‐set (Webler et al., 2009). Each statement was 2.3.1 | Administering the Q‐sort Q‐sorts were undertaken by each participant individually be- printed onto a card in a common format and read in detail several tween August 2017 and February 2018. Participants were asked times by the members of the research team who were familiar with to rank the 56 Q‐statements according to how strongly they the topic (though none had participated in the interviews to construct agreed or disagreed with each (Brown, 1996). To facilitate this the concourse). Group discussions explored possible meanings of each process, participants were given a deck of randomly numbered statement. The statements were assigned to clearly define themes cards (with each card containing one statement from the Q‐set), and subthemes that emerged inductively from the concourse. The instructed to read all 56 statements and sort them first into three categories provided a means of grouping statements that had broad categories; Agree, Disagree and Neutral/Unsure/Not applicable similarities (Webler et al., 2009). When no new themes emerged, it was (Cotton, 2015). The status of statements could be changed dur- surmised that major themes had been identified (Thomas, 2003). The ing subsequent sorting if desired. Statements were then sorted statements were further reduced following Fisher's experimental de- along a scale from 5 (agree most strongly) to −5 (disagree most sign principles (Brown, 1980), whereby similar statements within each strongly), where 0 is neutral (statements have zero salience), theme were eliminated to avoid repetition. The final Q‐set constituted and with a fixed number of statements along the scale (Watts 56 statements and was created by selecting a number of statements & Stenner, 2012). A pyramid‐shaped grid, known as an array, is from each theme and subtheme in order to encompass the spectrum used as it requires respondents to rank the statements in a forced of aspects discussed in the debate. A range of views within each theme quasi‐normal distribution (Curry et al., 2013; Figure S1). This en- was maintained (Cotton, 2015; Stainton Rogers, 1995). In order to courages the participants to evaluate each statement carefully minimise reflexivity (i.e. researcher interference) in the study design and helps them to reveal their preferences (Webler et al., 2009). (Webler et al., 2009), verbatim statements were included where possi- Participants in the Q‐sort were encouraged to interpret the ble with minimal editing and paraphrasing of the statements employed statements in the context of others when sorting (Cairns, 2012; only for the purposes of increasing clarity and brevity (Cotton, 2015; Webler et al., 2009). Once the statements had been ranked, Stainton Rogers, 1995). The final Q‐set was checked by eight informed each participant was asked to identify the areas in the grid that individuals from both the shooting and conservation communities in demarcated agree from disagree and neutral. Following the Q‐ the UK (Cotton, 2015; Stainton Rogers, 1995). Finally, pilot testing with sort, each participant was asked in an interview to elaborate on five individuals helped refine the Q‐sort process and ensured that in- how they had interpreted the most salient statements (those structions were clear and well understood. placed at both extreme ends of the continuum on the array), their reasoning for ranking the statements in their unique way, 2.3 | Participant selection and whether they felt that their perspective had been captured within the Q‐set (Brown, 1980; Van Exel & de Graaff, 2005). The Participants from the UK's shooting community were selected interviews provided information which, along with the factor through purposive sampling, instead of random sampling of a large analysis, helped give the Q‐sorts meaning. The interviews were number of participants. Q‐method aims to identify the compre- recorded by Dictaphone and transcribed. A number of verbatim hensive diversity of perspectives that exist, rather than to deter- statements were extracted to qualitatively illustrate the various mine how those perspectives are distributed across a population perspectives within each identified factor. During the interview, (Armatas, Venn, & Watson, 2017). Therefore, participants from the participants engaged in a short discussion on whether they felt shooting community were selected for their familiarity with the that solutions were required to reduce the risks of people and issue (Webler et al., 2009). Based on previous studies (Cromie et wildlife ingesting lead ammunition and, if so, to propose sugges- al., 2010) and discussions with those from the community, views tions. Potential barriers to implementing change were also dis- were deemed likely to vary according to how shooters predomi- cussed. Those not believing that solutions were required were nantly accessed their shooting, their primary target quarry species asked to explain their reasoning. Participants also provided addi- and their familiarity with non‐toxic shot (indicated by frequency tional socio‐demographic information through the completion of of use), albeit acknowledging that there is likely some overlap be- a short questionnaire. Each participant gave their informed con- tween categories. These additional criteria were therefore used sent to participate before they were surveyed. The anonymity of to identify participants within the shooting community (Table 2). participants was protected and the study and its methodology Although some participants were known to each other, efforts were approved by the College of Life and Environmental Sciences were made to incorporate individuals from a breadth of distinct (Penryn) Ethics Committee at the University of Exeter (reference and separate friendship groups, whose members were unknown 2016/1498). People and Nature NEWTH ET al. | 5 TA B L E 1 Factor arrays for the two study factors. Factor 1 represents the ‘Open to change’ perspective while Factor 2 represents Status quo. A factor array (i.e. an estimate of the factor's viewpoint) was identified by combining a weighted average of all the individual Q‐sorts that loaded significantly on a particular factor Factor Statement 1 2 1 Stakeholder opinions from all sides of the lead poisoning debate should be included in any decision‐making process. 2 3 2 Lead shot is better than steel at killing and not wounding an animal. 0 5 3 Supermarkets should clearly state that their wild game meat products might contain lead. 2 0 4 Lead ammunition harms the image of shooting. 1 −3 5 Steel shot is more likely to ricochet from hard surfaces than lead. 2 4 6 The phasing out of lead shot will lead to the demise of shooting. −5 1 7 The financial impacts of any further restrictions on lead could be very damaging to shooting‐related interests. −3 0 8 Lead ammunition is not a major source of lead poisoning in wild birds. −3 1 9 There is no evidence that lead poisoning causes bird populations to decline. −3 1 10 Current game meat handling techniques are enough to address any risks to humans from lead shot. −1 2 11 Shooters' pastimes and activities are being eroded. −4 2 12 If shooters saw birds dying from lead poisoning, they would think twice about using lead ammunition. 4 0 13 The scientific evidence of the impacts of lead on waterbirds is robust. 1 −2 14 The shooting community probably does more for wildlife and habitats than any other group in the UK. 0 5 15 A large number of wildfowl die from lead poisoning each year. 0 −3 16 The risks to wild birds from lead ammunition have been exaggerated. 17 Lead is a toxic substance. −3 3 5 3 18 Those with political power to influence the issue are biased in favour of keeping lead shot. −1 −4 19 20 Lead poisoning is a major welfare problem for wild birds. 0 −4 Shooters and non‐shooters have the same aim of having sustainable numbers of birds in the British countryside. 3 4 21 Steel shot damages shotgun barrels. −1 1 22 There needs to be greater awareness within the shooting community about the harm lead poisoning does. 4 0 23 To be taken seriously, information about lead poisoning needs to come from within the shooting community. 1 1 24 There should be better enforcement of current regulations restricting the use of lead shot. 1 −2 25 Opposition to lead ammunition is driven more by a dislike of shooting than any evidence of harm. −2 4 26 If use of non‐toxic ammunition makes people more aware of good range judgement, then they will shoot better. −1 −3 27 Steel and lead shot are comparably priced. −1 −2 28 More research should be done on the performance of non‐toxic ammunition. 0 3 29 Eating game killed by lead ammunition has adverse effects on human health. −2 −5 30 The most effective solution to reduce the risks of lead would be to replace lead shot with non‐toxic alternatives. 2 −1 31 There are no safe levels of lead exposure. 1 −2 32 More guidance on different ammunition types, and techniques for their use, would reduce concerns about non‐toxic shot. 2 0 33 Those selling game meat for human consumption are not very aware of possible lead contamination in their meat. −1 −4 34 There is clearly a need for solutions to reduce the risks of lead poisoning. 3 0 35 The risks to human health from lead ammunition have been exaggerated. −2 3 36 There should be better observance of current regulations restricting the use of lead shot. 4 −2 (Continues) 6 | NEWTH ET al. People and Nature TA B L E 1 (Continued) Factor 1 Statement 2 37 Current restrictions on using lead shot in England and Wales are not sufficient to address lead poisoning in waterbirds. 38 If you have to shoot at shorter ranges it's not as sporting or fun. −4 −1 39 Shooting at closer range with non‐toxic shot damages the meat. −2 −1 1 0 40 Using plastic wads with non‐toxic shot can cause problems with livestock. 0 2 41 Non‐toxic shot is widely available. 3 2 42 The shooting community and cartridge manufacturers need to work together and come up with a viable alternative to lead shot. 0 4 43 Ballistically, alternatives to lead shot that are fit for purpose already exist. 44 Current human health advice is enough to reduce the risks of lead shot to humans. 45 Sooner or later, lead shot will be banned. 46 Using non‐toxic shot would have a negative financial impact on me. 47 Non‐toxic shot is ineffective against clay targets. −5 −3 48 Regulations are essential to reducing lead poisoning in waterbirds. 3 −3 3 −1 −1 2 0 −2 −2 1 49 Lead poisoning in birds is not a big enough problem to justify current regulations. −4 1 50 Accumulated spent lead shot in intensively shot locations should be removed from the soil to reduce environmental contamination. −2 −4 51 Shooting organisations are afraid they will look weak if they support a ban on lead shot. 1 −1 52 I am happy to use non‐lead ammunition. 4 −1 53 A wider range of non‐toxic cartridges would become available if there was a ban on lead. 2 −1 54 Some 'non‐toxic' alternatives to lead have greater toxicity than lead. −3 0 55 Robust scientific evidence should determine how we use lead shot. 56 If we stopped using lead shot we'd have more birds to shoot. 5 2 −4 −5 Note: Statement numbers from the Q‐set are presented in brackets followed by their corresponding factor array score which relates to a scale of agreement (e.g. −5 = most disagree; 0 = neutral; +5 = most agree). For example, (17, +5) indicates that statement 17 is strongly agreed with. Rule; Brown, 1980); and (c) there were two or more significant factor 2.4 | Statistical analysis loadings following extraction (Brown, 1980; Table S1). Factor loadings The 30 Q‐sorts were analysed using centroid factor analysis and (i.e. the extent to which an individual Q‐sort exemplifies the pattern subjected to a Varimax rotation in PQMethod (Schmolck, 2014). An for a defined factor) were regarded as significant when ≥±0.34 at the unrotated factor was considered significant when: (a) its Eigenvalue p < 0.01 level (Brown, 1980) (Table S1), where: exceeded one (Kaiser–Guttman criteria: Guttman, 1954; Kaiser, 1960, 1970); (b) the cross product of its two highest loadings exceeded twice the standard error of the correlation matrix (i.e. >±0.27, Humphrey's √ Significant factor loading = 2.58 × (1∕ number of items in Q-set) TA B L E 2 Summary of the characteristics of survey participants. Based on previous studies (Cromie et al., 2010) and discussions with those from the community, it was hypothesized that viewpoints were likely to vary according to how shooters predominantly accessed their shooting, their primary target quarry species and their familiarity with non‐toxic shot (indicated by frequency of use), albeit acknowledging that there is likely some overlap between categories Characteristics Response (number of respondents) Use of non‐toxic shot Very frequently/frequently (14), occasionally (11), rarely/very rarely (3), never (1), unknown (1) Main quarry species Wildfowl (10), terrestrial (13), mixed (5), deer (1), unknown (1) Main access to shooting Syndicate/club (11), local contacts (9), shoots alone (1), employment (2), mixed methods, including commercial (3), mixed methods, excluding commercial (2), unknown (2) Age 25–34 (3), 35–44 (6), 45–55 (6), 55–64 (9), 65+ (5), Unknown (1) Gender Male (30), female (0) Occupation Business/industry/construction (9), farming/land management (4), conservationist/researcher (4), game management (4), cartridge supplier (1), rural commentator/journalist (2), retired (6) People and Nature NEWTH ET al. | 7 Factors selected using these criteria (Table S1) were then rotated drawing distinctions between them (Stenner, Cooper, & Skevington, (Schmolck, 2014). Q‐sorts that load significantly on the same fac- 2003). In order to minimise researcher bias that may arise during tor (e.g. see Table 3) show a similar sorting pattern suggesting simi- the interpretation process, a protocol (known as a ‘crib sheet’) for lar and/or shared viewpoints among participants (Watts & Stenner, analysing factor arrays developed by Watts and Stenner (2012) was 2012). A single, typical Q‐sort (termed a factor array) was created for systematically and rigorously followed for each array. This ensured each rotated factor by combining a weighted mean of all the signifi- that a methodical approach to factor interpretation was applied con- cantly loading Q‐sorts (Brown, 1980; Watts & Stenner, 2012; Table sistently in the context of each factor and helped to deliver genuinely 3; Figure S1). Interpretations of the factor arrays were made by ho- holistic factor interpretations by forcing engagement with every listically examining the way items were patterned within each and by statement in the factor arrays (Watts & Stenner, 2012). A ‘reflexive’ approach (Galdas, 2017) was also adopted which ensured critical TA B L E 3 The rotated factor matrix. The loadings indicate the extent to which each Q‐sort is associated with each of the study factors following rotation Sort number 1 self‐reflection about preconceptions, relationship dynamics and the analytical focus, throughout the process. For this, the lead researcher made use of observation and reflection to repeatedly examine these Factor 1 Factor 2 0.6684 −0.4248 aspects, processing through an ongoing internal dialogue and also in discussion with colleagues that were further removed from the subject (Attia & Edge, 2017). 2 0.2244 0.7025 3 0.5362a 0.2377 4 0.0096 0.8426a 5 a 0.6077 0.1417 6 0.4084a −0.0330 7 0.5248a −0.0383 8 0.4316a 0.2421 9 0.5574a 0.2656 10 0.6947a 0.2477 vided in Table 2. Two factors were extracted (Table 3) and ac- 0.7495a cording to the following selection criteria, represented the −0.0755 most plausible summary of the Q‐sorts (Watts & Stenner, 2012) 0.6006a (Table S1): Eigenvalues exceeded 1.0 (Kaiser–Guttman criteria: 0.1362 Guttman, 1954; Kaiser, 1960, 1970), the cross product of each 0.0074 factor's two highest loadings exceeded twice the standard error 11 −0.1989 a 3 | R E S U LT S A total of 36 people were approached; 30 (83.3%) actually participated (two individuals declined, two initially agreed to participate but later withdrew and two did not respond to the invitation). Detail of the composition of the participants is pro- 12 0.6766a 13 0.0146 14 0.6967 15 0.7434 16 0.0532 0.5185a 17 0.0065 0.6312 18 0.3381a 0.1736 19 0.2259 0.7108a 20 0.6856a −0.0933 21 0.3842a 0.3290 40% or above; Kline, 1994; Watts & Stenner, 2012). In total, 28 of 22 0.2094 0.5258a the 30 Q‐sorts significantly loaded onto one of the two factors 23 −0.0807 0.7516a and two sorts were confounded as they loaded significantly onto 24 0.2837 0.6375a both factors. Here, we aim to understand and explain the per- 25 −0.1903 0.7204a spective exemplified by each factor and shared by participants a a a of the correlation matrix (i.e. >±0.27, Humphrey's Rule; Brown, 1980), and there were two or more significant factor loadings (i.e. ≥±0.34) following extraction (Brown, 1980). Together both factors accounted for 43% of the rotated explained variance (Table 3) which falls at the lower end of the range of explained variance that would ordinarily be considered acceptable (35%– 26 0.5973a 0.0711 whose sorts have significantly aligned with them. Statement 27 0.6639 a −0.0979 numbers from the Q‐set are presented in brackets followed by 28 0.6313 a −0.2830 their corresponding factor array score. For example, (17, +5) indi- 29 0.5579 a 0.1875 30 0.4762 % explained variance Eigenvalue 0.4972 22.7 20.2 6.8 6.1 *Indicates which factor each Q‐sort is significantly loaded on (i.e. ≥±0.34 at p < 0.01). For example, sorts 3 and 5 significantly load on to Factor 1 and contribute to the weighted average derived from the array which exemplifies Factor 1 (Table 1; Figure S1). Q‐sorts 1 and 30 are confounded, that is, they significantly load on to both factors. cates strong agreement with statement 17 (see Table 1 for array scores associated with each statement and factor). Pertinent comments made by participants during the post‐sort interviews are also used to support interpretation. 3.1 | Factor 1: Open to change Résumé: This group of ammunition users believed that lead is toxic; re‐ futed the view that lead ammunition is not a major source of poisoning 8 | NEWTH ET al. People and Nature in wild birds; believed that solutions are needed, and the phasing out of to develop a viable alternative to lead shot (42, 0). Using non‐toxic lead shot will not lead to the demise of shooting. They are content to use shot was not believed to have a negative financial impact on the non‐lead ammunition. individual (46, −2). There was neither agreement nor disagreement Factor 1 has an Eigenvalue of 6.8 and explains 22.7% of the study with the notion that lead shot is better than steel at killing and variance. A total of 17 participants significantly loaded on this factor. not wounding an animal (2, 0). There was some disagreement that current human health advice is sufficient to reduce the risks of lead shot to humans (44, −1) and that current game meat handling 3.1.1 | Evidence and impacts techniques are enough to address any risks to humans from lead I think we're all aware that lead is a toxic substance. shot (10, −1). It's been taken out of petrol, it's been taken out of pencils. And now, in certain circumstances, it's been taken out of shotgun ammunition (Participant 5) 3.1.3 | Cultural and sporting aspects I don't see any reason why the phasing out of lead This perspective was characterised by a strong belief that lead is shot will lead to the demise of shooting… Indeed, toxic (17, +5) and some agreement that there are no safe levels of lead in some senses, if we lost lead shot, or gave up lead exposure (31, +1). It refutes the views that lead ammunition is not a shot, we might be in a stronger position to promote major source of poisoning in wild birds (8, −3) and that it has no impact what we do, because it is such a controversial issue on bird populations (9, −3). Scientific evidence of the impacts of lead on (Participant 14) waterbirds was perceived to be robust (13, +1). This position did not believe that the risks to wild birds from lead ammunition have been exag- This position strongly disagreed with the view that shoot- gerated (16, −3) nor that opposition to lead ammunition is driven more ers' pastimes and activities are being eroded (11, −4). There by a dislike of shooting than any evidence of harm (25, −2). Eating game was strong disagreement that shooting at shorter ranges is not killed by lead ammunition was not thought to have adverse effects on as sporting or fun (38, −4). The financial impact of any further human health (29, −2). However, the risks to human health from lead restrictions on lead was not perceived to be very damaging to ammunition were not perceived to have been exaggerated (35, −2). shooting‐related interests (7, −3). This perspective adhered to the view that shooting organisations are afraid they will look weak if they support a ban (51, +1). There was strong disagreement that 3.1.2 | Solutions the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the demise of shooting I am very happy to use non‐lead ammunition. It's not (6, −5), and there was uncertainty that lead shot will be banned in an opinion; I use it, it works, and therefore I'm in com- the future (45, 0). plete agreement with it (Participant 12) This viewpoint recognised the need for solutions to reduce the 3.2 | Factor 2: Status quo risks of lead poisoning (34, +3). It strongly agreed that if shooters saw Résumé: This group of ammunition users believed that lead is toxic but birds dying from lead poisoning, they would think twice about using did not regard lead poisoning a major welfare problem for wild birds; op‐ lead ammunition (12, +4), and that there was a need for greater aware- position to lead ammunition is driven more by a dislike of shooting than ness within the shooting community about the harm lead poisoning evidence of any real harm; there is ambivalence about the need for solu‐ does (22, +4). There was also strong support for better observance tions and they are unhappy with the non‐toxic alternatives. of current regulations restricting the use of lead shot (36, +4) and the need for robust scientific evidence to determine how lead shot is used Factor 2 has an Eigenvalue of 6.1 and explains 20.2% of the study variance. In total, 11 participants significantly loaded on this factor. (55, +5). This view strongly disagreed that lead poisoning in birds is not a big enough problem to justify current regulations (49, −4). Regulations were seen as essential for reducing lead poisoning 3.2.1 | Evidence and impacts in waterbirds (48, +3). This position supported the replacement of If it was right what they're saying, why are lead shot with non‐toxic alternatives as the most effective solution there not people picking up birds all across the for reducing the risks of lead (30, +2). There was strong agreement countryside? with the statement ‘I am happy to use non‐lead ammunition’ (52, +4) and agreement that guidance on different ammunition types, In the shooting world we're up against so much oppo- and techniques for their use, would reduce concerns about non‐ sition. A lot of people just don't like what we do, they toxic shot (32, +2). According to this view, alternatives to lead shot don't like shooting… (Participant 25) that are fit for purpose (in ballistic terms) already exist (43, +3). Therefore, there was ambivalence about whether the shooting This perspective agreed that lead is a toxic substance (17, +3) community and cartridge manufacturers need to work together but disagreed that there are no safe levels of lead exposure (31, −2). People and Nature NEWTH ET al. Lead ammunition was not perceived to be a major source of lead | 9 shot locations should be removed from the soil (50, −4). There was poisoning in wild birds (8, +1) and lead poisoning was not regarded strong disagreement that those selling game meat for human con- as a major welfare problem for wild birds (19, −4). The scientific sumption are not very aware of possible lead contamination in their evidence of the impacts of lead on waterbirds was not believed to meat (33, −4) and there was satisfaction that current human health be robust (13, −2) and the risks to wild birds from lead ammunition advice is sufficient to reduce risks of lead shot to humans (44, +2). were thought to have been exaggerated (16, +3). It was strongly Current game handling techniques were deemed to be sufficient to agreed that opposition to lead ammunition is driven more by a dis- address any risks to humans from lead shot (10, +2). like of shooting than any evidence of harm (25, +4). There was strong disagreement that eating game killed by lead ammunition has adverse effects on human health (29, −5). Furthermore, the 3.2.3 | Cultural and sporting aspects risks to human health from lead ammunition were perceived to So they [the gamekeepers] are managing the habi- have been exaggerated (35, +3). tats so they are not only beneficial to the pheasants but also all the other wildlife that's there as well (Participant 4) 3.2.2 | Solutions It's been overlooked, the fact that lead is the cleanest killing ammunition out there (Participant 25) This position strongly adhered to the view that the shooting community probably does more for wildlife and habitats than any other group (14, +5). There was agreement with the notion that shooters' There was ambivalence about the need for solutions to reduce pastimes and activities are being eroded (11, +2) and that the phasing the risks of lead poisoning (34, 0) although agreement that robust out of lead shot will lead to the demise of shooting (6, +1). There was scientific evidence should determine how lead shot is used (55, +2). uncertainty about whether the financial impacts of any further restric- This view did not agree that there should be better observance of tions on lead could be very damaging to shooting‐related interests (7, the current regulations restricting the use of lead shot (36, −2). There 0). There was strong disagreement that those with political power are was some agreement that lead poisoning in birds is not a big enough biased in favour of keeping lead shot (18, −4). This view did not believe problem to justify current regulations (49, +1). Regulations were not that lead shot will be banned in the future (45, −2). deemed essential for reducing lead poisoning in waterbirds (48, −3). This position disagreed with the suggestion that the most effective solution to reduce the risks from lead would be to replace lead shot 3.3 | Consensus among perspectives with non‐toxic alternatives (30, −1). There was some disagreement Well, if you've got to have a discussion, you need to with the statement ‘I am happy to use non‐lead ammunition’ (52, have the people who are against it and the people −1) suitable alternatives to lead shot already exist (43, −1). It was who are for it, so you can have a balanced debate strongly agreed that lead shot is better than steel at killing and not (Participant 25) wounding an animal (2, +5) and that steel is more likely to ricochet from hard surfaces than lead (5, +4). There was strong support for There were five statements of statistically significant consensus the shooting community and cartridge manufacturers working to- across both factors (Table 4). Both parties indicated that lead poisoning gether to develop a viable alternative to lead shot (42, +4). This view was a shared problem; the involvement of stakeholders from all sides strongly disagreed that accumulated spent lead shot in intensively of the debate was desirable and there was consensus that to be taken TA B L E 4 Statements with statistically significant consensus across both factors. These are items whose rankings do not distinguish between factors, that is, the study factors have ranked these statements in the same or similar ways (where p > 0.05). Both the Q‐sort value and normalised factor scores (the z scores) are shown. It should be noted that the authors noticed some difficulty with participants' interpretation of statement 56. It was clear in the follow‐up interviews that some took this statement to refer to lead's impacts on wild bird populations while others linked it with reared game bird populations. There is therefore likely some ambiguity with the interpretation of this statement in this analysis Statement 1 Stakeholder opinions from all sides of the lead poisoning debate should be included in any decision‐making process 21 23 Factor 1 Rank (z score) Factor 2 Rank (z score) Differential z score 2 (0.820) 3 (0.968) −0.148 Steel shot damages shotgun barrels −1 (0.022) +1 (0.156) −0.134 To be taken seriously, information about lead poisoning needs to come from within the shooting community +1 (0.423) +1 (0.212) 0.211 41 Non‐toxic shot is widely available +3 (0.830) +2 (0.573) 0.257 56 If we stopped using lead shot we'd have more birds to shoot −4 (−1.828) −5 (−2.084) 0.256 10 | NEWTH ET al. People and Nature seriously by shooters information about lead poisoning should come policy issues in three main ways: (a) Clarifying perspectives; (b) from the shooting community. It was agreed that some challenges as- Identifying competing problem definitions and solutions; and (c) sociated with the non‐toxic alternatives (steel shot damages shotgun Forging new solutions. Here, we discuss the contribution of this barrels) remain, though the alternatives were believed to be widely study to each of these, summarising and exploring the links between available. Key statement positions that define the two factors and con- each perspective's definition of the problem and preferred solutions sensus statements are illustrated in Figure 1. (Derry, 1984; Weiss, 1989). 4 | D I S CU S S I O N 4.1 | Clarifying perspectives The views of individual ammunition users in the UK about the ‘lead The risks of lead ammunition use to human and wildlife health and debate’ were characterised by two statistically and qualitatively the measures taken to mitigate these have long been debated in distinct perspectives: (a) ‘Open to change’—those that refuted the the UK, culminating in a current conflict primarily enacted between view that lead ammunition is not a major source of poisoning in groups representing shooting and conservation interests (Cromie et wild birds, believed that solutions to reduce the risks of poisoning al., 2015; Newth et al., 2015). While this conflict between groups is are needed, were happy to use non‐lead alternatives and did not well known, we have explored the diversity of perspectives among feel that the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the demise of ammunition users, the critical group for their role in releasing lead shooting; and (b) Status quo—those who did not regard lead poi- into the environment and adopting any related changes to shooting soning as a major welfare problem for wild birds, were ambivalent practice. Durning (2005) proposed that Q‐methodology can be de- about the need for solutions and felt that lead shot is better than ployed to help resolve conflicts and forge solutions for contentious steel at killing and not wounding an animal. Opposition to lead F I G U R E 1 A Venn diagram depicting views on some key statements that define two subject positions derived from a Q‐method study of ammunition users. Topics of consensus between the two positions are highlighted in the centre. For each perspective, statements were allocated to three themes that emerged inductively from the Q‐set: the problem, the solution and the wider context. Taking a holistic approach advocated by Q‐method (Watts & Stenner, 2012), statements that reflected a breadth of factor scores, from −5 to +5, within each factor array were extracted, and statements related to topics regarded by the authors as most prevalent within the ‘lead debate’ were prioritised for inclusion. Statements with statistically significant consensus across both factors (see Table 4) were included in the ‘Consensus’ section. For brevity and illustrative purposes, these statements were summarised and included in this Venn diagram. This figure therefore represents a ‘snap‐shot’ of each perspective rather than a comprehensive view People and Nature NEWTH ET al. | 11 ammunition was driven more by a dislike of shooting than evi- Although both perspectives agreed that lead is toxic, the extent of its dence of any harm. To understand fully the complexity and nature toxicity was disputed: ‘Open to change’ believed that lead is a genuine of perspectives, they should be placed within their wider socio‐ problem and there are no safe levels of lead, whereas Status quo be- economic and cultural contexts. Both therefore are discussed lieved that the lead problem is exaggerated and safe levels exist. Such within the context of views about the future of shooting in the contrasting definitions of the ‘lead problem’ was manifested in differ- British landscape. ing views on its impacts and the need for (and preferred) solutions. The two perspectives had contrasting views about the future For ‘Open to change’, the scientific evidence on the impacts of of shooting. The Status quo perspective was framed by fears that lead on waterbirds was believed to be sound and the evidence was the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the demise of shooting trusted (i.e. not considered exaggerated nor influenced by a wider and that shooters' pastimes and activities were being eroded. These dislike of shooting sports). Conversely, those aligned to Status quo’ fears were compounded by the feeling that opposition to lead shot is were less inclined to believe the evidence, which was not regarded driven by a dislike of shooting. This perspective reflects a prevailing as robust and was perceived to have been exaggerated. This distrust message in the printed shooting media in recent years, which has of the evidence is again likely compounded by the strong sense that suggested that a ban on lead shot represents ‘the thin end of the opposition to lead ammunition is driven more by a dislike of shoot- wedge’ with a call for all attacks on shooting to be resisted (Cromie ing than evidence of harm. Mistrust of scientists often stems from et al., 2015). Such concerns were also reflected in comments made a questioning of their motives rather than their expertise or integ- during the interviews and suggest that some may perceive their rity (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2017). Multiple factors may contribute shooting heritage as a whole to be under threat, for example: to distrust of science, including religious beliefs, level of education, political affiliation and socio‐economic status (Kabat, 2017; Kahan, People with political influence are using banning of 2002). Distrust is a key barrier to collaboration (Ansell & Gash, 2007) lead shot in the hope therefore that people will give and to the resolution of conservation conflicts (Young et al., 2016), up shooting. So it's the sprat to catch the mackerel. and therefore may have serious implications for conservation, the The thin end of the wedge success of which often relies on effective collaboration. (Participant 13) In the post‐sort interviews, several ammunition users linked Moreover, this shooting heritage was believed to make an import- their disbelief about the impacts of lead with their own personal ant contribution to the conservation of British wildlife. This sense experiences, notably that they had never knowingly encountered a of pride in the ‘shooting life’ was a strong theme in the post‐sort lead poisoned bird nor had been aware of any impacts on their own interviews: health following a lifetime of eating game: The shooting community wants the wildlife to suc- But here I am, I've been eating game for, I don't know, ceed…My grandfather was a tenant farmer, he told 72 years, and I'm still here. So it's ineffective on me me that you're only here for a short period and you're (Participant 19) only the steward of the land in your lifetime, and you have an obligation to leave it looking better than you found it (Participant 13) Neither perspective believed that lead shot was harmful to human health. Mortality of wild birds from lead poisoning often goes undetected (Cromie et al., 2010; Newth et al., 2013). Unlike wildlife diseases Conversely, ‘Open to change’ disagreed that shooters' pastimes such as botulism, large‐scale die‐offs of wild birds from lead poisoning and activities were being eroded and that the phasing out of lead shot are rare events (Pain, 1991). Furthermore, sublethal impacts of lead would lead to the demise of shooting: on the physiological systems of birds (Franson & Pain, 2011; Newth et al., 2016) and humans (Arnemo et al., 2016; EFSA, 2010) may not be I don't agree that the phasing out of lead shot would obvious (Cromie et al., 2015). lead to the complete demise of shooting. I think the It should also be considered that when conservation issues phasing out of lead shot will have short‐term impacts are politicised, individuals may selectively understand the science on shooting in accordance with their own value‐based demands (Chamberlain, (Participant 12) Rutherford, & Gibeau, 2012; Kahan, Jenkins‐Smith, & Braman, 2011; Sarewitz, 2004) and this may partly explain the polarity in view- 4.2 | Identifying competing definitions of the lead problem Problem definition provides the foundations for the construction of points in this study. 4.3 | Preferred solutions policy and its implementation, as well as influencing which stakehold- Status quo was ambivalent about the need for a solution to reduce ers take part in the decision‐making process (Weiss, 1989). We found the risks of lead shot, perhaps unsurprisingly given the view within contrasting definitions of the problem among ammunition users. this group that lead poisoning is not a significant problem. A previous 12 | NEWTH ET al. People and Nature survey of British shooters found that a key reason for non‐compliance with the current lead shot restrictions was that ‘lead poisoning is 4.3.1 | Commonalities not a sufficient problem to warrant restrictions’ (Cromie et al., 2010). Although the two perspectives differed on many issues, there was There was also support for this sentiment within Status quo, associ- consensus that to be taken seriously information about lead poison- ated with little enthusiasm for suggested solutions such as awareness ing should come from within the shooting community: raising, better observance or enforcement of the current regulations and further regulations to replace lead shot with non‐toxic alterna- Yes. If you want to hear bad news, you want to hear it tives. In contrast, as well as agreeing that lead was a significant prob- in the pub, from your mates, rather than in the media, lem, ‘Open to change’ recognised the need for solutions to reduce the at a press conference directed at you. You want to risks of lead poisoning. Regulations were seen as essential and there be in the room, and you want to be in ownership was some support for the replacement of lead shot with non‐toxic al- of leading the way out of what the issue might be ternatives. This view strongly agreed that shooters would think twice (Participant 22) about using lead ammunition if they saw birds dying from poisoning and that greater awareness of the issue would help: This indicates that such sources would have greater credibility among shooters. In Denmark, critical advocates within the hunting I just can't imagine that anybody, whether they were community persuaded other hunters of the benefits of non‐toxic shooters or not, would think that it's acceptable to ammunition using evidence from hunter‐led research (Kanstrup, see birds being poisoned or dying. If they saw it, I 2019; Newth et al., 2015). In principle, both perspectives supported think it would upset them using robust scientific evidence to guide lead shot policy and man- (Participant 10) agement and agreed that opinions from all sides of the ‘lead debate’ In recent years, the ‘lead debate’ has been punctuated by numer- should be included in the decision‐making process. Effective par- ous national laws (HMSO, 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004, 2009) ticipation may improve relationships by increasing trust and sharing and international agreements (IUCN, 2016; Kanstrup et al., 2018; perspectives and ultimately reduce conflicts (Ansell & Gash, 2007; UNEA, 2017; UNEP‐CMS, 2014, 2017) which have called, to varying Redpath et al., 2013). Both perspectives believed that shooters and degrees, for the replacement of lead ammunition with non‐toxic al- non‐shooters have the same aim of having sustainable numbers of ternatives. Views on non‐lead alternatives notably differed between birds in the British countryside: the two perspectives. Those in ‘Open to change’ were more likely to be happy to use non‐lead options, felt that they were fit for purpose I feel as though my view would be the same as a non‐ and therefore saw little need for further research to develop a viable shooter. We want to see the same thing, we don't alternative. They believed that the availability of further information want to see the decline in wildlife at all. We'd rather on non‐lead ammunition would reduce concerns. A previous survey see the uprising of it (Participant 17) found that 41% of British shooters felt that more guidance about the non‐lead options would help improve compliance with current restrictions (Cromie et al., 2010). However, those in Status quo were generally not happy to use non‐lead ammunition, did not feel that the alterna- 4.3.2 | Forging solutions tives were fit for purpose and strongly believed that lead shot was Conflicts are often oversimplified as they become entrenched and better than steel at killing and not wounding an animal. A dislike of the polarised, losing the nuanced perspectives that may exist among alternatives was also a key reason that British shooters gave for not the parties. Furthermore, individuals within a polarised stake- complying with the current regulations in England (Cromie et al., 2010) holder group do not necessarily hold uniform opinions on wild- and concerns about the effectiveness of non‐lead shot relative to lead life management (Chamberlain et al., 2012; Rust, 2017). Here, use have been reported in shooting communities elsewhere (Kanstrup, of Q‐method has allowed access to a complex issue, enabling the 2006, 2015, 2019). There was a strong belief among those in Status perspectives of ammunition users, as the key group of actors, to quo that more research should be done to develop a viable alternative. be clarified, competing definitions of the problem and preferred It seems logical that those who were more content with the non‐lead solutions to be identified and commonalities to be revealed. alternatives, reflecting the perspective of ‘Open to change,’ are more Critically, these perspectives arise solely from within the shooting likely to support the replacement of lead shot with these alternatives community of ammunition users. In a conflict commonly depicted while those who were not, are less likely to support this suggested as between those in favour of shooting versus those opposed, we solution. There was some support from those within ‘Open to change’ reveal that a diversity of views on lead ammunition are held within for the notion that shooting organisations are afraid they will look the shooting community itself. Further studies are required to as- weak if they support a ban on lead shot. This may reflect the pressure sess the prevalence of the views identified. The variables influenc- that membership‐oriented shooting organisations are under to pro- ing the views outlined within this paper merit further examination vide both leadership and to reflect their memberships' views and sup- using interdisciplinary methods from the social sciences and psy- porting a ban may feed into a narrative of giving in to the opposition. chology. A deeper understanding of factors predicting the use of People and Nature NEWTH ET al. lead and non‐lead ammunition would be beneficial for addressing non‐compliance with the current regulations and acceptability of any future changes to practice. Given that the lead debate is dynamic and influenced by various socio‐economic and political factors (Cromie et al., 2015), this study may form a useful foundation for a longitudinal study whereby changes in perspectives on the issue across time can be explored. The views of women shooting participants were not captured within this study as women were not specifically targeted during participant recruitment. Studies have shown that women exhibit relatively stronger environmental concern and behaviour than men (Vincente‐Molina, Fernández‐Sáinz, & Izagirre‐Olaizola, 2018), and therefore targeted work to assess the perspectives of women in relation to the lead shot issue merits further examination. Overall, the clarification of views held by ammunition users presents an opportunity for the shooting community to take forward discussions and potentially forge new solutions. AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S We are extremely grateful to all participants and advisors from the shooting community for their trust, time and contribution to this study. C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T There are no conflicts of interest associated with this work. AU T H O R S ’ C O N T R I B U T I O N S J.L.N. conceived the idea, J.L.N., R.A.M., A.L., R.L.C. and J.A.S. designed the methodology; J.L.N. collected the data; J.L.N. and E.S. prepared the data for analysis; J.L.N. analysed the data; J.L.N. led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication. DATA ACC E S S I B I L I T Y All data supporting the results in this paper are available from Zenodo (digital repository): https ://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2653514 (Newth et al., 2019). ORCID Julia L. Newth https://orcid.org/0000‐0003‐3744‐1443 Eileen C. Rees https://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐2247‐3269 Kevin A. Wood https://orcid.org/0000‐0001‐9170‐6129 Robbie A. McDonald https://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐6922‐3195 | 13 REFERENCES Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopar t/mum032 Armatas, C., Venn, T., & Watson, A. (2017). Understanding social‐ecological vulnerability with Q‐methodology: A case study of water‐based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA. Sustainability Science, 12, 105– 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625‐016‐0369‐1 Arnemo, J. M., Andersen, O., Stokke, S., Thomas, V. G., Krone, O., Pain, D. J., & Mateo, R. (2016). Health and environmental risks from lead‐ based ammunition: Science versus socio‐politics. EcoHealth, 13, 618– 622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393‐016‐1177‐x Attia, M., & Edge, J. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265 507.2017.1300068 Avery, D., & Watson, R. T. (2009). Regulation of lead‐based ammunition around the world. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras & W. G. Hunt (Eds.), Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife and humans (pp. 161–168). Boise, Idaho: The Peregrine Fund. Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., … Wyborn, C. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2016.10.006 Bredin, Y. K., Lindhjem, H., Van Dijk, J., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2015). Methodological and ideological options mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis. Ecological Economics, 118, 198–206. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.005 Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732396 00600408 Byrd, K. (2002). Mirrors and metaphors: Contemporary narratives of the wolf in Minnesota. Ethics, Place & Environment, 5, 50–65. https://doi. org/10.1080/13668790220146456 Cairns, R. C. (2012). Understanding science in conservation: A Q method approach on the Galapagos Islands. Conservation and Society, 10, 217–231. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972‐4923.101835 Chamberlain, E. C., Rutherford, M. B., & Gibeau, M. L. (2012). Human perspectives and conservation of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Canada. Conservation Biology, 26, 420–431. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1523‐1739.2012.01856.x Cotton, M. D. (2015). Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: A Q‐method study on environmental discourses. Environment and Planning, 47(9), 1944–1962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15 597134 Cromie, R. L., Loram, A., Hurst, L., O’Brien, M., Newth, J., Brown, M. J., & Harradine, J. P. (2010). Compliance with the environmental protection (restrictions on use of lead shot)(England) Regulations 1999. Report to Defra. Bristol. Cromie, R., Newth, J., Reeves, J., Beckmann, K., O’Brien, M., & Brown, M. (2015). The sociological and political aspects of reducing lead poisoning from ammunition in the UK: Why the transition to non‐ toxic ammunition is so difficult. In R. J. Delahay & C. J. Spray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Oxford lead symposium (pp. 104–124). Oxford, UK: Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford. Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M., & Bergsma, E. (2010). Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 6, 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005 14 | People and Nature Curry, R., Barry, J., & McClenaghan, A. (2013). Northern Visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56, 624–649. https://doi. org/10.1080/09640568.2012.693453 Derry, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Durning, D. (2005). Using Q‐methodology to resolve conflicts and find solutions to contentious policy issues. Network of Asia‐Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance(NAPSIPAG) Annual Conference 5–7 December 2005, Beijing, China. EFSA. (2010). Scientific opinion on lead in food. EFSA Journal, 8, 1570. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1570 Franson, J. C., & Pain, D. J. (2011). Lead in birds. In W. N. Beyer & J. P. Meador (Eds.), Environmental contaminants in biota. Interpreting tissue concentrations (pp. 563–593). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. Frantzi, S., Carter, N. T., & Lovett, J. C. (2009). Exploring discourses on international environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: A case study of the Mediterranean Action Plan. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2007.08.013 Galdas, P. (2017). Revisiting bias in qualitative research: Reflections on its relationship with funding and impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094 06917 748992 Green, R. E., & Pain, D. J. (2015). Risk of health effects to humans in the UK from ammunition‐derived lead. In R. J. Delahay & C. J. Spray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Oxford lead symposium (pp. 27–43). Oxford, UK: Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford. Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common‐factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF022 89162 Haas, P. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 569–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000248034 HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationary Office). (1999). The environmental protection (restriction on use of lead shot) (England) Regulations 1999. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2170/ contents/made HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationary Office). (2002a). The environmental protection (restriction on use of lead shot) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/2002/2102/contents/made HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationary Office). (2002b). The environmental protection (restriction on use of lead shot) (Wales) Regulations 2002. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2002/1730/ contents/made HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationary Office). (2003). The environmental protection (restriction on use of lead shot) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/2003/2512/contents/made HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationary Office). (2004). The environmental protection (restriction on use of lead shot) (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 2004. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2004/358/ contents/made HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationary Office). (2009). The environmental protection (restriction on use of lead shot) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ nisr/2009/168/contents/made Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. IUCN. (2016). WCC Resolution 082: A path forward to address concerns over the use of lead ammunition in hunting. Retrieved from: https ://porta ls.iucn.org/libra ry/sites/ libra ry/files/ resre cfile s/ WCC_2016_RES_082_EN.pdf NEWTH ET al. Kabat, G. C. (2017). Taking distrust of science seriously. EMBO Reports, 18, 1052–1055. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.20174 4294 Kahan, D. M. (2002). The logic of reciprocity: Trust, collection action and law. John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Papers. Paper 281. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147–174. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164460 02000116 Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817 Kanstrup, N. (2006). Non‐toxic shot‐Danish experiences. In G. Boere, C. A. Galbraith & D. A. Stroud (Eds.), Waterbirds around the world (p. 861). Edinburgh, Scotland: The Stationery Office. Kanstrup, N. (2015). Practical and social barriers to switching from lead to non‐toxic gunshot‐a perspective from the EU. In R. J. Delahay & C. J. Spray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Oxford lead symposium (pp. 98–103). Oxford, UK: Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford. Kanstrup, N. (2019). Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark. In N. Kanstrup, V. G. Thomas & A. D. Fox (Eds.), Lead in Hunting Ammunition: Persistent Problems and Solutions (Ambio Vol.48). Stockholm, Sweden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-018-1125-9 Kanstrup, N., Swift, J., Stroud, D. A., & Lewis, M. (2018). Hunting with lead ammunition is not sustainable: European perspectives. Ambio, 47(8), 846–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280‐018‐1042‐y Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London, UK: Routledge. Luks, F. (1999). Post‐normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: Deconstructing normal science? Futures, 31, 705–719. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0016‐3287(99)00028‐2 Madden, F., & McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation’s blind spot: The case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 178, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.015 Newth, J. L., Cromie, R. L., Brown, M. J., Delahay, R. J., Meharg, A. A., Deacon, C., … Pain, D. J. (2013). Poisoning from lead gunshot: Still a threat to wild waterbirds in Britain. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10344‐012‐0666‐7 Newth, J. L., Cromie, R. L., & Kanstrup, N. (2015). Lead shot in Europe: Conflict between hunters and conservationists. In S. M. Redpath, R. J. Gutierrez, K. A. Wood & J. C. Young (Eds.), Conflicts in conser‐ vation: Navigating towards solutions (pp. 177–179). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Newth, J. L., Lawrence, A., Cromie, R. L., Swift, J. A., Rees, E. C., Wood, K. A., … McDonald, R. A. (2019). Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2653514 Newth, J. L., Rees, E. C., Cromie, R. L., McDonald, R. A., Bearhop, S., Pain, D. J., … Hilton, G. M. (2016). Widespread exposure to lead affects the body condition of free‐living whooper swans Cygnus cygnus wintering in Britain. Environmental Pollution, 209, 60–67. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.007 Pain, D. J. (1991). Why are lead‐poisoned waterfowl rarely seen? The disappearance of waterfowl carcasses in the Camargue, France. Wildfowl, 42, 118–122. Pain, D. J., Cromie, R., & Green, R. E. (2015). Poisoning of birds and other wildlife from ammunition‐derived lead in the UK. In R. J. Delahay & C. J. Spray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Oxford lead sympo‐ sium (pp. 58–84). Oxford, UK: Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford. Price, S., Saunders, C., Hinchliffe, S., & McDonald, R. A. (2017). From contradiction to contrast in a countryside conflict: Using Q Methodology to reveal a diplomatic space for doing TB differently. Environment and People and Nature NEWTH ET al. Planning A, 49, 2578–2594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17 726782 Raik, D., Wilson, A., & Decker, D. (2008). Power in Natural Resources Management: An Application of Theory. Society & Natural Resources, 21, 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801905195 Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., … Gutiérrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021 Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer, 52, 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033‐0124.00252 Rust, N. A. (2017). Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human‐carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q‐methodology and Delphi exercise. Oryx, 51, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0030605315001179 Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Avan, E., Ambientals, T., & Autonoma, U. (2015). The fallacy of evidence based policy Science for policy. Predicaments and Doubts. Futures, 1–30. Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001 Schmolck, P. (2014). PQMethod (version 2.35). Retrieved from: http:// schmolck.org/qmethod/ Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q methodology. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre & I. Van Longenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 178– 193). London, UK: Sage. Stenner, P. H. D., Cooper, D., & Skevington, S. M. (2003). Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health‐ related quality of life using Q methodology. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 2161–2172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277‐9536(03)00070‐4 Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour: Q technique and its meth‐ odology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Stroud, D. A. (2015). Regulation of some sources of lead poisoning: A brief review. In R. J. Delahay & C. J. Spray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Oxford lead symposium (pp. 8–26). Oxford, UK: Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford. Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Auckland, New Zealand: School of Population Health, University of Auckland. Retrieved from https://www.frankumstein.com/PDF/Psychology/Induc tive%20Content%20Analysis.pdf Thomas, V. (2015). Availability and use of lead‐free shotgun and rifle cartridges in the UK, with reference to regulations in other jurisdictions. In R. J. Delahay & C. J. Spray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Oxford lead sym‐ posium (pp. 85–97). Oxford, UK: Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford. UNEA. (2017). United Nations Environment Assembly 3 UNEP/EA.3/ Res.4 Environment and Health. Retrieved from: https://papersmart. unon.org/resolution/uploads/k1800154.english.pdf UNEP‐CMS. (2014). Resolution 11.15. Preventing poisoning of migratory birds. Adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its 11th | 15 meeting, 4–9November 2014, Quito, Ecuador. Retrieved from: https ://www.cms.int/en/docum ent/preve nting‐poiso ning‐migra tory‐birds UNEP‐CMS COP12. (2017). Leaders' breakfast: Moving towards a pollution‐free planet. 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties. October 2017, Manila, The Philippines. Retrieved from: https://paper smart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/outcome_of_leaders_break fast_ cms_cop12_22_october.pdf Van Exel, N. J. A., & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved from: https://qmethodblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ qmethodologyasneakpreviewreferenceupdate.pdf Vincente‐Molina, M. A., Fernández‐Sáinz, A., & Izagirre‐Olaizola, J. (2018). Does gender make a difference in pro‐environmental behaviour? The case of the Basque Country University students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079 Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. London, UK: Sage. Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal so‐ cial perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield, MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22, 97–121. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00141381 Wissenschaft im Dialog. (2017). Science barometer 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.wissenschaft‐im‐dialog.de/fileadmin/user_uploa d/Proje kte/Wisse nscha ftsba romet er/Dokum ente_17/Einze lgraf iken/Sciencebarometer2017_brochure_web.pdf Young, J. C., Searle, K., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A. D., & Jordan, A. (2016). The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation, 195, 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2015.12.030 Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123 S U P P O R T I N G I N FO R M AT I O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: Newth JL, Lawrence A, Cromie RL, et al. Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans. People Nat. 2019;00:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.30