ResearchPDF Available

Executive Summary of a PhD Thesis: 'Understanding the social impact of participation in Driven Game Shooting in the UK'

Authors:

Abstract

This is an executive summary of a PhD study completed between 2017 and 2020 in the UK. Taking a critical realist, mixed methods approach, the PhD study fills a gap in the research base relating to driven game shooting (DGS) and its social impact. It looks at how involvement in DGS affects the people involved, using a recognised social impact assessment methodology with a theoretical underpinning of social capital theory. It considers the extent to which DGS creates social impact through the creation of social capital and reinforcement of identity, whether this is affected by size and/or type of shoot and how these impacts can be valued in future. A need for this was clearly outlined by National Resources Wales and its independent evaluation consultants (Hillyard and Marvin, 2017; Natural Resources Wales, 2017). This study is the first research study to consider the social impacts of DGS in full, utilising a recognised Social Impact Assessment method to produce a framework for future use in evaluating the social impact of shooting and therefore represents an original and needed contribution to knowledge. The study comprised of two stages of data collection. Firstly, qualitative, visiting shoots of different sizes and types from small and larger syndicates through to small and larger commercial shoots nationwide, observing/engaging with participants, contacting a sample of 45 people afterwards for a longer telephone interview. Results of these reflective observations and interviews were analysed using a Straussian grounded theory approach, allowing the production of a questionnaire for wider distribution using online and hard copy distribution channels, during the second quantitative stage, which received 2,424 responses suitable for analysis. Results indicate a positive impact on participant’s mental health and well-being measured using the short Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (SWEMWBS) compared to national data. This positive impact, facilitated by social support networks created within DGS, is influenced strongly by identity. Regular participation in physical activity, time spent outdoors, a sense of purpose and reduced loneliness appear to be contributing factors to this positive impact. Syndicate membership in particular enhances the mental well-being benefits. This study confirms that the financial value of these social impacts is potentially significant, as the cost-savings to the taxpayer in avoiding poor mental health and maintaining physical health can be very high. This will have implications for policy-makers when considering amendments to the rules surrounding DGS in the UK.
1
Executive Summary of a PhD thesis
Dr Tracey Latham-Green, BA(hons), MBA, PhD
8th September 2020
UNDERSTANDING
THE SOCIAL IMPACT
OF PARTICIPATION
IN DRIVEN GAME
SHOOTING IN THE UK
2
1 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 AIM & RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3
1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
1.3 PROJECT FUNDING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 3
2 SYNOPSIS 4
2.1 KEY FINDINGS 6
3 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 11
3.1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW 11
3.2 VALUING AND COMPARING SHOOT SOCIAL IMPACTS 12
3.2.1 FUTURE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK 12
3.2.2 SOCIAL IMPACT VALUE: MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING 13
3.2.3 PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING 14
3.2.4 SOCIAL IMPACT VALUES: NEGATIVE IMPACTING FACTORS 14
3.2.5 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 16
3.3 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH AREAS 20
4 REFERENCES 21
Author: Tracey Latham
-
Green
Date: August 2017
3
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIM & RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The aim of the study was to fill a gap in the research base in relation to the social impacts of participation in Driven
Game Shooting (DGS) in the UK. A need for this study was clearly outlined by National Resources Wales and
its independent evaluation consultants (Hillyard and Marvin, 2017). The PhD project was the first research
study to consider the social impacts of DGS in full, utilising a recognised Social Impact Assessment method
to produce a framework for future use in evaluating the social impact of shooting and therefore
represents an original and needed contribution to knowledge.
The following research questions were considered:
To what extent does DGS create social impact through the creation of social capital and
reinforcement of identity?
How does the type and size of shoot mediate social capital and identity development?
How can these social impacts be valued and compared in the future?
1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks go to all of the participants as without them the study would not have been able to be completed.
Their continuing support throughout the process was vital in enabling me to understand the reasons why
individuals take part in Driven Game Shooting and how strongly many feel about its role in their life. This
enabled me to develop a strong questionnaire and subsequently achieve high levels of responses to it.
The researcher remains forever grateful.
Secondly, thanks go to the supervisory team and the department team members for their support,
knowledge and guidance which was invaluable in developing the researcher’s understanding of
particularly theory-based research. Professor Richard Hazenberg and Professor Simon Denny were
outstanding supervisors who supported the researcher throughout her journey and were always there
when advice and guidance were needed.
Finally, the researcher thanks her family, in particular her husband and children who supported her
throughout her journey.
1.3 PROJECT FUNDING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The project was funded solely from the departmental budget surplus of the University of Northampton’s
Directorate for Research, Impact and Enterprise. No external funding was received from any
organisations. The researcher had never been involved in game shooting or rural field sports of any kind
prior to the PhD study.
This report is a summary of the study. The full PhD thesis can be found from late September 2020 at the
University of Northampton Pure site https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/en/publications/ or a short while
later at the British Library EThOS online thesis repository here https://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do.
4
2 SYNOPSIS
What is the social impact of participation in driven game shooting?
“I think it’s an endemic way of life. If you’ve grown up with it, it’s part of your DNA”
P48 (gun, syndicate)
This study considered how involvement in DGS affects the people participating, not just ‘shooting guns’,
but also beaters, pickers-up and others, using a recognised social impact assessment methodology with a
theoretical underpinning of social capital theory. It considered the extent to which DGS creates social
impact through the creation of social capital, which has been defined as “connections among individuals
– social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam, 2000,
p. 19) and reinforcement of identity, whether this was affected by size and/or type of shoot and how
these impacts can be valued in future. The study comprised of two stages of data collection. Firstly,
qualitative, visiting shoots of different sizes and types from small and larger syndicates through to small
and larger commercial shoots nationwide, observing/engaging with participants, contacting a sample of
45 people afterwards for a longer telephone interview. Results of these reflective observations and
interviews were analysed using an academically recognised qualitative analysis approach, allowing the
production of a questionnaire for wider distribution using online and hard copy distribution channels,
during the second quantitative stage, which received 2,424 responses suitable for analysis.
Results indicate a positive impact on participant’s mental health and well-being measured using the short
Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (SWEMWBS) compared to national data. This positive
impact, facilitated by social support networks created within DGS, is influenced strongly by identity.
Regular participation in physical activity, time spent outdoors, a sense of purpose and reduced loneliness
appear to be contributing factors to this positive impact. Syndicate membership in particular enhances
the mental well-being benefits. The study confirms that the financial value of these social impacts is
potentially significant as-savings to the taxpayer in avoiding poor mental health and maintaining physical
health can be very high. It is estimated that poor mental health costs the UK £105 billion per annum,
when the various social and economic factors are taken into account (Department of Health Independent
Mental Health Taskforce, 2016) and the overall costs of loneliness for each individual person can be £6,000
over ten years (Mcdaid, Bauer and Park, 2017). Physical inactivity and obesity can lead to long-term
conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Leong and Wilding, 1999), which are costly to
manage in the NHS. A 2014 study indicated that obesity had a burden of around £47 billion a year on
society (circa 3% of GDP), making it the greatest impact after smoking (Dobbs et al., 2014), which is more
than the annual cost of armed violence, war and terrorism (Press Association, 2014). This increased
availability of green spaces to encourage physical activity could reduce this economic burden on society,
a wider social impact. Avoiding premature death due to physical activity has been valued at £34,818 per
person (The Scottish Government, 2003). Overall, Public Health England estimate that lack of physical
activity costs the UK £7.4 billion per annum (Public Health England (PHE), 2016).
5
DGS receives no direct subsidies from Government. Preliminary research for this project indicated that
many smaller, often syndicate shoots, are run on land holdings that have not applied to be part of either
the Entry Level Stewardship, the Higher Level Stewardship or the Countryside Stewardship schemes
(Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2005; UK Government, 2020b, 2020a). Any
management of habitat, predation control, and supplementary feeding that is carried out is funded by the
shoot members. However, some shooting does take place over either lowland farms or upland moors
where a Stewardship scheme is in place. The operation of these schemes involves the landowner (or in
some cases tenant) and some landowners/tenants are involved in DGS. Funding is received from
government based on the achievement of stewardship objectives such as those of the previously funded
Higher Level scheme (wildlife conservation; maintenance and enhancement of landscape quality and
character; natural resource protection; protection of the historic environment; promotion of public access
and understanding of the countryside) (Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
2005), which could be regarded as both supportive of shooting (maintenance and enhancement of
features such as hedgerows, promotion of public understanding of the countryside), and also detrimental
to it (promotion of public access). It is important to highlight that driven game shooting is not the only
activity that takes place on an area of land; rather it is one of a range of activities that landowners/tenants
engage in for reasons of both financial return and personal enjoyment.
There are individuals and organisations who believe that the killing of any animal for sport is wrong (Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), 2014; League Against Cruel Sports, 2020). This
study did not set out to take a ‘position’ on the rights or wrongs of driven game shooting. It sought to
identify some of the impacts on the c. 1.5 million people (see Appendix O in the full thesis) that take part
in DGS, not to comment on the moral or ethical considerations involved in DGS. Neither did the study
seek to examine fully the environmental or economic impacts of DGS, or the arguments that take place
between those that think DGS is good for the environment and those that criticize it on environmental
grounds. Taking an ethical position on DGS is not simple, as there are many different ways in which the
sport is practiced. There are significant differences between DGS on a moorland estate where grouse
shooting is part of an integrated pattern of activities aimed at increasing biodiversity, improving habitat,
and reducing threats to human and animal health by reducing the number of ticks present in the
vegetation (Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), 2020b); and a commercial pheasant shoot in,
for theoretical example, the Midlands, that may not actively seek to improve the environment. Good
practice DGS depends on three common factors: feeding of birds (which inevitably includes non-game
birds getting more food); habitat management (which typically is intended to improve biodiversity); and
predator control (Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, 2018; Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
(GWCT), 2020a, 2020c). The only consistent ethical position that might be taken on these factors would
be an opposition to predator control because it involves killing animals. However, predators survive by
killing other animals and both conservation groups, and Government land stewardship schemes, both
promote (and in the case of stewardship schemes reward) predator control as a way of maintaining a
balanced and diverse ecosystem (Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2005; UK
Government, 2020a, 2020b). Discussions relating to the ethics of shooting often include factors such as
the use of lead shot, intensive game bird rearing and the impact of large game bird releases on the
environment (Hutchinson, 2011), citing the intensive raising of pheasants and partridges for example
(Humphreys, 2010). These environmental factors are discussed in section 3.6 of the full doctoral thesis.
6
The cultural, ritual and social elements of wild killing of animals by humans has also been considered in
prior research (Marvin, 2006).
Therefore, this study did not seek to make judgement on the ethical position of shooting birds for sport,
instead it follows the recognised GECES social impact assessment methodology (Hehenberger, Harling and
Scholten, 2014), with a well-developed theoretical underpinning, to explore the social impacts of the sport
in terms of the intended and unintended consequences, both negative and positive, for both the
individuals involved and wider society, in relation to social capital and identity theory. Policy interventions
to ban or regulate DGS might wish to take into account the evidence on social impact presented in the full
thesis.
2.1 KEY FINDINGS
“The other thing that obviously is a big attraction for myself and just about everyone
I know is the social aspect because the very fact that you are doing something that
isn’t run of the mill means that you are actually working with a group of people all of
whom have similar interests and ability so it’s a sort of natural selection process
really …..and why do I do it when it’s wet and horrible.”
Strong social capital networks, one of the wider determinants of health as defined by Dahlgren and
Whitehead (1991), exist within all forms of driven game shooting, in particular within not-for-profit
syndicate shoots, and this study found examples of those support networks being activated in times
of need, such as following a close bereavement. A very strong and clear ‘rural identity’ amongst
almost all participants further strengthened the social networks - 91% of survey participants
indicated a rural identity, a connection to the countryside and rural life influenced participation,
Strong social support networks have a number of positive benefits to both mental and physical
health and well-being and can help enhance and maintain social cohesion in rural communities.
“…it’s a thing if you look at your friends, the vehicle you drive, the clothes you wear is
all around the shooting aspect. I’ve got a 4x4 vehicle, I need a 4x4 vehicle. I wear
moleskins, I’ve got a checked tattersall shirt on as we speak, so your clothing, you
know also sometimes what you eat I mean we have pheasant sometimes on a
Sunday so the whole, all these areas all come down to, it makes you in a sense.”
Participation in DGS in any form has a moderate to large positive effect on participants’ mental
health and well-being measured using the short Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale
(SWEMWBS)1. This is due to a number of factors including strong social support networks, reduced
1 Independent t-test with national dataset Understanding Society 2015-16 Wave 7 produced significant (p=<.001) difference
between mean SWEMWBS of national dataset and DGS participants, with a medium to large effect size (Cohen’s d) at 0.64
7
loneliness, strong rural and/or cultural heritage identity, time spent outdoors in nature, regular
physical exercise and participating in an activity that gives a sense of purpose2.
Syndicate shoots have a potentially greater impact on participants’ mental health and well-being,
especially for those aged 55 year and over with stronger friendships/bonding social capital,
providing stronger social support networks and less division, via stronger bridging social capital.
Sense of purpose was particularly important for beaters and pickers-up with 98% of regular beaters
and pickers up agreeing or strongly agreeing that is was important that they (or their dog(s) if
applicable) ‘do a good job to contribute to the success of the shoot day’. Having a sense of purpose,
particularly as we get older, has been shown to positively impact health and well-being (Alimujiang
et al., 2019; McKnight and Kashdan, 2009).
“I do think if you live to some extent on your own as you get older and become
very introspective there can be a degree of how do I feel today and that’s bad for
anyone. You know, when you have a couple of kids you don’t have time to invest in
yourself and how you’re feeling and I think that is a possible pitfall if you don’t have
enough to do as you get older.”
The study highlighted rural nature of DGS as a pastime and the particularly positive impact it can
have on ageing, rural populations’ mental health and well-being. In rural areas of the UK the
proportion of those over 65 years is rising more quickly and will continue to be greater than in urban
areas, therefore the importance of ensuring good mental health and well-being in rural areas is
heightened. Avoiding loneliness is particularly important in rural areas, with isolated settlements
and poor public transport. Loneliness has been shown to increase the risks of frailty (Gale, Westbury
and Cooper, 2018), of developing coronary heart disease, and vulnerability to strokes (Valtorta et
al., 2018).
“I could easily go a day here where I wouldn’t see anybody and you sort of think,
that’s not a good thing really …I wouldn’t want it to become like the norm that you
don’t do very much and you don’t see very many people. I think that’s when you
become a little bit introverted and you don’t sort of get yourself out there and that’s
when I think you’re just, (sighs) you know waiting for the inevitable.”
2 In any social impact study alternative attribution or other factors that may influence positive impacts in addition to the
intervention or activity being considered must be taken into account. Caution must be applied in interpreting the data, as the
study compared the results of participants with a national dataset rather than with a genuine control group. As participants
has often been taking part in DGS for many years, feeling it is an integral part of their lives and identity, deadweight factor,
representing what would have happened anyway, and drop-off, reduction in the benefits resulting from an intervention over
time, are not of high relevance in this study
8
Good mental health and well-being and strong support networks can positively impact long-term
condition management, which is also important as the NHS has recognised we are living longer but
often with long-term conditions to manage. This long-term condition management will become
increasingly community based in line with the NHS long-term plan, with the role of self-care gaining
increasing importance, so the ability to take part in a social network activity that also provides
physical exercise such as DGS increases in importance.
DGS can be of benefit in encouraging physical exercise all year round. DGS participation encouraged
individuals of all ages to go out and participate in walking long distances year in all weathers. The
median distance walked by participants was 8.0 km (mean 8.1 km), rising to a median of 9.0 km
(mean 9.4 km) for beaters and pickers-up. Throughout the season, 66.2% of beaters and pickers-up
take part in DGS once a week or more, with 39.2% taking part twice a week or more which indicates
a large amount of exercise is facilitated via participation in DGS throughout the winter months, in
all weathers that may not be completed if individuals were not taking part in DGS. The annual
impact of regular exercise can be measured to show a positive financial benefit to society using a
recognised tool such as the WHO calculator. The benefit is higher for those aged over 45 years,
which is relevant as DGS participants fell within the older range of individuals. In addition, walking
has been recognised as a good way for reluctant men to exercise and DGS is a predominantly male
sport (86.7 % male participants).
“Everybody cheers you on, come on you know you’re getting on a bit now …we all
give a lot and take a lot really. I don’t rate getting up at six o’clock in the morning to
go out beating a great idea this time of the year, you know but when it’s snowing it’s
even worse (laughs) but I never say no...my wife...she says come on you gotta go,
you can’t sit around doing nothing.”
Based upon the WHO HEAT tool a value of around £547 million3 per year can be suggested as the
health-related financial impact of participation in DGS by beaters and pickers-up, due to the
increased walking that this group participates in. This value is based on the weekly exercise during
the shooting season being spread out over the entire year (i.e. 9km per week for a four-month
period equates to 3km per week average across a year). Full details of the calculations can be
found in the PhD thesis.
The unique status of the not for profit syndicate/family shoot provides a lower potential negative
impact form of DGS participation, with less days shot across the year involving a lower number of
birds. Syndicate shoots often use volunteers for a range of roles, which has been shown to positively
impact health and well-being with potential societal value of regular volunteering estimated at
£13,500 per annum (Fujiwara, 2013). The environmental benefits of land management carried out
3 Converted from EUR to GDP at a rate of 0.8453 on 11.02.2020. (Bank of England, 2019). Full calculation details can be found
in the full thesis.
9
to facilitate many syndicate shoots receive no subsidy, so any environmental benefits come at zero
direct cost to the taxpayer and this too should be recognised within any social impact measurement
framework.
The study found a link to participation due to family and/or cultural heritage for some. The
importance of social practices that are regular, seasonal events in contributing to individual and
community well-being through a strong, heritage linked identity has been recognised by UNESCO as
‘intangible cultural heritage’ (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), 2018). For those within the DGS community who take part for family heritage reasons,
participation is linked to their perception of history, reaffirming their identity. Those who grew up
in rural areas were more likely to participate for heritage reasons and those that were member of a
syndicate were more likely to participate for heritage reasons than those who were not syndicate
members, an additional reflection of the strong bonds and friendships amongst syndicate members.
“I have always been a country person brought up on a farm, never lived in a village
or anything rather live out in the sticks sort of thing……..I was brought up to it
actually, father and brother. My father and my brother were always into their
shooting, rough shooting really on the farm and I sort of always tagged along
behind, a little kid, sort of happy to carry the game.”
Previous research highlighted the important role of commercial shoots in providing employment (a
wider determinant of health) in remote areas (Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC),
2012, 2014a). The provision of social events in the community found via this study can be of value
within rural areas so this should also be considered, with large commercial shoots providing such
opportunities recognised. Newcomers to rural areas were shown to be welcomed to the DGS
community if they showed an interest in taking part, allowing them to make friends and build social
capital networks in the area they have now moved to. Intergenerational mixing opportunities,
evidenced by the age ranges of shoot participants, was also found also a factor in enhancing social
cohesion.
“I enjoy the fact that it’s something that the rest of my family enjoy partaking in as
well and that it’s almost a generational gathering of different ages and people of
different backgrounds and interests.”
Regular consultation with the commercial shooting industry is vital to ensure best practice is
followed and that those not following respect for quarry, environmental and other guidelines are
tackled whilst good practice is recognised. The good practice of some commercial shoots should be
recognised and poor practice should lead to consequences. A licensing scheme could be considered
for commercial shoots above a certain size, shooting above a certain number of days. However, this
should be formulated in conjunction with the shooting industry to ensure decisions are not made
10
that can cause irreparable damage to businesses, as was seen in the case of the general licence
survey issues in Spring 2019, potentially exacerbating the conflicts between those for and against
shooting. Ensuring smaller commercial enterprises, shooting fewer, smaller days as part of their
business diversification have a less burdensome regime to ensure compliance with good practice,
will allow the positive benefits of shooting as a diversification of farm income to continue within
reasonable guidelines, whilst minimising any negative impacts. Failure to recognise the importance
of following good practice and stopping poor practice risks widening the conflicts between those
who shoot and those that do not.
The social impact framework developed in this research (see Figure 3.2) can be used to allow the
true value to society of DGS social impacts to be measured and also facilitate comparison between
different shoot types and sizes, in line with recommended SIA procedures. However, in order to use
a framework effectively, an assessment would need to be made of the number of large commercial,
small commercial and syndicate/family shoots across the UK. This data does not currently exist,
particularly in relation to syndicate and family shoots. Any social impact valuation would need to
be completed by an independent consultant who does not participate in DGS to avoid bias.
It is important that the voices of those participating in DGS are heard in balance with those against,
in spite of their lack of media expertise, and that any decisions on future regulation/restriction are
based on evidence. Even when evidence is reviewed independently, as in the case of the National
Resources Wales consultation, and recommendations are made to allow game shooting to continue,
a single voice against can unduly influence any decisions. This leads to feelings of powerlessness
amongst those who feel under-represented and under-equipped to challenge decisions through
modern communication channels. Instead, a more balanced approached should be taken,
considering the evidence. The National Trust has taken such an approach, balancing the views of
those for and against shooting and continuing to allow shooting on its land that has a link to heritage
and is in line with the ethos of the organisation.
11
3 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW
This study found that participation in DGS results in the building of bonding social capital, which is
strengthened by a clearly defined, strong rural identity. This rural identity sometimes represented a link
to intangible cultural heritage (United Nations Educational, 2018) which relates to social practices,
knowledge and seasonal events that some individuals and communities recognise as part of their cultural
heritage. Bridging social capital was also found within both commercial and syndicate shoots, although it
was stronger within syndicate shoots as there was less division between guns and other participants than
that found at commercial shoots. This bridging social capital facilitates wider participation in DGS for
newcomers to rural areas and widens the social networks of those participating, strengthens community
cohesion and potentially enables DGS participants to access services, training and employment. The
combination of strong identity and social capital has been shown to create social support networks, ready
to be ‘activated’, or used as a support network in times of need. The study found that some individuals
faced circumstances in which the support network created via their participation in DGS was used to
support them through a difficult time.
Participation in DGS resulted in higher mental well-being levels measured using the short Warwick-
Edinburgh mental well-being scale (SWEMWBS) for participants across all sizes and types of shoot. The
benefit was particularly high in older individuals who are part of a syndicate shoot, with stronger social
networks, reinforcing the role of social capital networks in good mental health and well-being. The higher
mental well-being level was influenced by a number of factors including strong friendships, reduced
loneliness levels (as a consequence of having a well-developed friendship/social support network), having
a purposeful life, strong identity, spending time outdoors and completing regular physical exercise
outdoors, (further benefitting participants’ physical health). There is a large potential cost saving to the
UK taxpayer in avoiding poor mental health for those who participate in DGS in any role, whether that be
as a gun, beater, picker-up or otherwise, and from the physical health benefits of exercise completed by
beaters and pickers-up in particular. The complex nature of the linkages within DGS is shown in the
diagram Figure 3.1 overleaf, outlining the positive, social impact outcomes found in this study, showing
links between social capital, identity and social networks and the outcomes for individuals and
communities.
The study also found that the conflict between those for and against shooting was exacerbated by
perceived and reported lack of social media expertise that participants felt reduced their ability to defend
negative wider perceptions of DGS. The use of evidence-based decision making by government can help
reduce this conflict, as noted the next section 3.2, which also discusses how the social impacts of DGS can
be valued and compared in future.
12
FIGURE 3.1 SOCIAL CAPITAL, IDENTITY AND SOCIAL NETWORKS-COMMUNITY AND INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
3.2 VALUING AND COMPARING SHOOT SOCIAL IMPACTS
3.2.1 FUTURE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Based on the benefits of social impact measurement as described by GECES, two key reasons for
measuring social impact are to provide an evidence-based assessment of societal impacts of any activity
or intervention to be used when decisions are being made that may affect these societal impacts, and to
feed reliable and robust evidence into policy-making decisions (Hehenberger, Harling and Scholten, 2014).
DGS is currently an activity (intervention) that is not funded by the taxpayer. If it were to be restricted
any positive social impacts identified and potential societal cost-savings realised would need to be funded
by the taxpayer, or they would be forgone. It is important to consider any irreversible and undesirable
effects of restricting DGS before they occur (Burdge and Johnson, 1998) and a structured method of both
valuing DGS overall and comparing and contrasting different shoot types is required.
An outline social impact measurement framework is shown in Figure 3.2. This research has shown that
participation in DGS is often not restricted to one size or type of shoot, with beaters and pickers-up in
particular often attending a range of shoot types and sizes. Therefore, the impacts seen in those that
participate could have resulted due to attendance at one or many shoots of different sizes/types or
through involvement with the DGS community as a whole. To compare the social impact of different
shoot types and sizes fully, further research would need to be undertaken to assess the number of
different types and size of shoot across the UK, the additional social activities they provide for participants
and to what extent GWCT and BASC good practice guidance is followed by shoots. It was clear from the
literature review that previous valuations relating to economic and environmental impacts of DGS have
13
been accused of bias. Therefore the use of a fully independent assessor, following a uniform
measurement method, would be vital to produce a reasonable, unbiased social impact assessment value
of any individual shoot or group of shoots.
It is important to note that the impacts discussed in this report and the full thesis represent the maximum
potential impact on mental health and well-being that could be attributed to participation in DGS. In
terms of alternative attribution (meaning the other factors that could influence the increase in well-being)
and the proportion of the increase in SWEMWBS score that is attributable to DGS, caution must be applied
in interpreting the data, as the study compared the results of participants with a national dataset rather
than with a genuine control group. As the individuals concerned have been taking part in DGS for many
years, it is difficult to ascertain a deadweight factor, representing what would have happened anyway, as
many believe that DGS is integral to their lives and identity. The longevity of participation also indicates
that drop-off, reduction in the benefits resulting from an intervention over time, is not particularly
relevant in this study.
3.2.2 SOCIAL IMPACT VALUE: MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
The data collected in this study does not allow for a robust valuation of the overall potential financial
impacts relating to mental well-being, because it is not possible to accurately account for difference in
well-being between DGS and non-DGS participants to a degree that would allow for accurate financial
projections. This study has shown that syndicate shoots have a potentially greater impact on participants’
mental health and well-being, especially for those aged 55 year and over with stronger
friendships/bonding social capital, providing stronger social support networks and less division, via
stronger bridging social capital. This means a greater proportion of the social impact value shown in this
section could be attributed to syndicate shoots. The overall mental well-being impact can be explored in
more detail once further research has been completed into the distribution of shoots of different sizes
and types across the UK. There are few studies that attempt to value subjective well-being (Maccagnan
et al., 2019). However, a 2019 study suggested that maintaining well-being could be valued at £10,560
per person, per year (Cox, Bowen and Kempton, 2012 in Maccagnan et al., 2019). This valuation compares
loss of subjective well-being with severe mental health problem development, using Quality Adjusted Life
Year (QALY) health economist assessed weights4 (Maccagnan et al., 2019; Cox, Bowen and Kempton,
2012; Sainsburys Centre for Mental Health, 2010). Further research should seek to explore this amongst
the DGS population (and indeed other groups who engage in outdoor physical activities).
4 “QALYs are one way economists use to estimate the varying types of health outcomes in a common metric—with a value of
1 indicating a year in full health and 0 indicating death. Taking the loss of QALYs from a severe mental health condition (0.352)
and multiplying by the NICE Cost Effectiveness threshold of £30,000 gives a value of £10,560 per year for overall well-being”
(Maccagnan et al., 2019, p. 16) . The NICE cost effectiveness threshold is used to assess new clinical interventions to around
cost-benefit analysis. The standard threshold stands at £20,000 to £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), however
higher thresholds are used in some circumstance in areas such as end of life care and when patients make individual funding
requests for treatment that are considered by an NHS panel.
14
3.2.3 PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
Whilst all participants in this study walked a median average of 8km on a shoot day, reducing to 7km for
paying guns and increasing to 9km for beaters and pickers-up, it is beaters and pickers-up who most
frequently participate in the shooting season, which takes place for around one third of the year. An
indicative value for physical health benefits via regular exercise participation, for an estimated number of
beaters and pickers-up in the UK has been calculated using the WHO Health Economic Assessment Tool
(HEAT) for walking and cycling (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2019). The calculation takes into
account age, distances walked and frequency of participation, with those who participate less than once
a week not included in the calculation. Based upon the HEAT tool a value of around £547 million5 per year
can be suggested as the health-related financial impact of participation in DGS by beaters and pickers-up,
due to the increased walking that this group participates in. This value is based on the weekly exercise
during the shooting season being spread out over the entire year (i.e. 9km per week for a four-month
period equates to 3km per week average across a year). The total maximum economic impact calculated
by HEAT over the full assessment period of 10 years equals £5.47 billion6, which when discounted to 2020
values at an annual discount rate of 5% amounts to £4.22 billion7. These calculations are based on the
HEAT prediction that the increased walking and physical activity experienced by beaters and pickers-up
prevents 158 premature deaths per year, which equates to 1,601 premature deaths prevented over ten
years. Full details of the calculations can be found in the full PhD thesis.
3.2.4 SOCIAL IMPACT VALUES: NEGATIVE IMPACTING FACTORS
Whilst this study has shown the social networks in DGS had a positive impact on participants’ mental
health and well-being measured using SWEMWBS and in relation to physical exercise for those who
engage as beaters and pickers-up, these values need to be considered in conjunction with potential
negative impacts identified in this study. These negative impacts, in the form of wider conflicts and
societal perceptions, vary between shoot sizes and types and their consideration would therefore be
essential to compare the overall social impact of different sizes and types of shoot. For example,
commercial shoots that can prove compliance with best practice and traceability of all meat into the food
chain reduce the negative impact of these conflicts, whereas those that do not potentially increase the
impact of these negative factors. The framework shown in Figure 3.1 could be used with an application
of positive and negative impact factors, such as those suggested in the full thesis, for which values and
scoring mechanisms would need to be developed in future research. As an example of practical use, this
would result in shoots following the exemplar standards resulting in higher net social impacts, when
potential negative impacts have been considered compared to those who do not comply to such
standards, recognising the potential negative impacts of DGS identified during this research study.
5 Converted from EUR to GDP at a rate of 0.8453 on 11.02.2020. (Bank of England, 2019)
6 ibid
7 ibid
15
FIGURE 3.2 OUTLINE SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK FOR PARTICIPATION IN DGS
Potential reduced costs to society
Mental Well-being including from volunteering
where applicable. Physical Exercise – Health Adjustments for positive and negative weighting
factors
Positive Impact on Mental Health and Well-Being
EVIDENCE: Statistically Higher SWEMWBS, regular exercise, reduced loneliness
Higher
SWEMWBS
Reduced
Lone-
liness
Sense of
Purpose Regular
Exercise Time spent in
nature
Identity
rural/
heritage
Friendship.
activatable
support network
Social Network Creation
EVIDENCE: Strong, positive correlation ‘if I needed help, I can rely on my friends from within the
shooting community’ ‘I have made some close, long-term friends from my involvement in DGS
Identity Control Theory, unbroken process, create
and maintain social structures (Burke and Cantwell) Symbolic interactionism (Mead, Stryker). Putnam,
Coleman –Trust and reciprocity Community Support
Social Capital & Identity
EVIDENCE: Social Network/Friendship high scores; Bridging SC/wider participation (demographics);
Rural Identity – 91% of participants. Wider rural links to participation; Heritage links.
Symbolic interactionism, shared
understandings (Mead, Stryker) Community, trust and reciprocity
(Putnam, Coleman)
Identity Theory (Tajfel and
Turner)
ICT (Burke & Cantwell)
Estimated 1.5 million people take part in Driven Game Shooting
in the UK
Activity &
Outputs
Impacts
Outcomes
16
3.2.5 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A summary of policy recommendations is shown in Table 3.1. These policy recommendations are based
on the evidence presented in the full thesis for this study relating to the social impact of participation in
driven game shooting and should be considered in any review of the regulations relating to DGS. The
policy recommendations refer to potential financial benefits to society of participation in DGS. To give
context to the policy recommendations, whilst there are few studies that attempt to value subjective well-
being (Maccagnan et al., 2019), it has been suggested maintaining well-being could be valued at £10,560
per person, per year (Cox, Bowen and Kempton, 2012 in Maccagnan et al., 2019). Using the WHO HEAT
tool to measure the impact of walking (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2019), a value of around £547
million8 per year can be suggested, with the number of premature deaths potentially prevented over one
year estimated at 1589. Once further research to assess the distribution of shoot sizes and types has been
completed, and a mechanism for applying positive and negative impacts factors described in the full thesis
has been developed, an overall value to society of individuals’ participation in DGS comparing the different
types and sizes of shoot could be calculated, utilising the framework shown in Figure 3.2.
8 Converted from EUR to GDP at a rate of 0.8453 on 11.02.2020. (Bank of England, 2019)
9 Full details of the WHO HEAT tool calculation can be found in the full PhD thesis
17
TABLE 3.1 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation Outline
1 Recognise the
strong social
support networks
apparent across all
forms of DGS and
in particular within
not-for-profit
syndicate shoots.
This research illustrated the strong social capital networks that exist within all
forms of driven game shooting and has given examples of those networks being
activated in times of need. This included a very strong and clear ‘rural identity’
amongst almost all participants, which further st
rengthened the social networks.
Strong social support networks have a number of positive benefits to both mental
and physical health and well-being, as outlined in Chapters 2 and 3, and can help
enhance and maintain social cohesion in rural communities.
2 Recognise the
benefit of
participation in
DGS on
participants’
mental health and
well-being.
This study has shown that participation in DGS in any form has a moderate to
large effect on participants’ mental health and well-being measured using the
short Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (SWEMWBS). This is due to a
number of factors including strong social support networks, reduced loneliness,
strong rural and/or cultural heritage identity, time spent outdoors in nature,
regular physical exercise and participating in an activity that gives a sense of
purpose.
3 Recognise the rural
nature of DGS as a
pastime and the
particularly
positive impact it
can have on
ageing, rural
populations’
mental health and
well-being.
The positive impact on participants’ mental health and well-being was particularly
high in those who are members of a syndicate, either roving or location based,
above the age of 55 years, reflecting the importance of strong social networks as
we get older. In rural areas the proportion of those over 65 years is rising more
quickly and will continue to be greater than in urban areas, therefore the
importance of ensuring good mental health and well-being in rural areas is
heightened. Good mental health and well-being and strong support networks can
also positively impact long-term condition management, which is also important
as the NHS has recognised we are living longer but often with long-term
conditions to manage. This long-term condition management will become
increasingly community based in line with the NHS long-term plan, with the role
of self-care gaining increasing importance, so the ability to take part in a social
network activity that also provides physical exercise such as DGS increases in
importance.
4 Recognise the
benefit of DGS in
encouraging
physical exercise
all year round.
This study has found that DGS participation encouraged individuals of all ages to
go out and participate in walking long distances in all weathers. The median
distance walked by participants was 8.0 km (mean 8.1 km), rising to a median of
9.0 km (mean 9.4 km) for beaters and pickers-up. Throughout the season, 66.2%
of beaters and pickers-up take part in DGS once a week or more, with 39.2%
taking part twice a week or more which indicates a large amount of exercise is
facilitated via participation in DGS throughout the winter months, in all weathers
that may not be completed if individuals were not taking part in DGS. The annual
impact of regular exercise can be measured to show a positive financial benefit
to society using a recognised tool such as the WHO calculator. The benefit is
higher for those aged over 45 years, which is relevant as DGS participants fell
within the older range of individuals. In addition, walking has been recognised as
a good way for reluctant men to exercise and DGS is a predominantly male sport
(86.7 % male participants).
18
5 Recognise the
unique status of
the ‘not for profit’
syndicate and
family shoot and
its resultant
positive social
impacts
The unique status of the not for profit syndicate/family shoot needs to be
recognised as a lower potential negative impact form of DGS participation, with
less days shot across the year involving a lower number of birds. Syndicate shoots
often use volunteers for a range of roles, which has been shown to positively
impact health and well-being with potential societal value of regular volunteering
estimated at £13,500 per annum (Fujiwara, 2013). The environmental benefits of
land management carried out to facilitate many syndicate shoots receive no
subsidy so any environmental benefits come at zero direct cost to the taxpayer
and this too should be recognised within any social impact measurement
framework.
6 Recognise the
strong heritage
cultural identity
linked to
participation in
DGS for some
people, particularly
in the form of a
syndicate, as a
form of intangible
cultural heritage.
This study has found a link to participation due to family and/or cultural heritage
for some. The importance of social practices that are regular, seasonal events in
contributing to individual and community well-being through a strong, heritage
linked identity has been recognised by UNESCO as ‘intangible cultural heritage’
(United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
2018). Participation in DGS by those within the DGS community who take part for
family heritage reasons, participation is linked to their perception of history,
reaffirming their identity. Those who grew up in rural areas were more likely to
participate for heritage reasons and those that were member of a syndicate were
more likely to participate for heritage reasons than those who were not syndicate
members, an additional reflection of the strong bonds and friendships amongst
syndicate members.
7 Recognise the
positive impact on
social cohesion,
wider participation
and welcoming
newcomers to an
area DGS can have
if carried out in an
appropriate way.
This study found that previous studies have highlighted the important role of
commercial shoots in providing employment (a wider determinant of health) in
remote areas (Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC), 2012, 2014)
.
The provision of social events in the community found via this study can also be
of value within rural areas so this should also be considered, with large
commercial shoots providing such opportunities recognised. Newcomers to rural
areas were shown to be welcomed to the DGS community if they showed an
interest in taking part, allowing them to make friends and build social capital
networks in the area they have now moved to. Intergenerational mixing
opportunities, evidenced by the age ranges of shoot participants, was also found
also a factor in enhancing social cohesion.
8 Consult with the
commercial
shooting industry
to ensure best
practice is followed
and that those not
following respect
for quarry,
environmental and
other guidelines
are tackled whilst
good practice is
recognised.
The good practice of some commercial shoots should be recognised and poor
practice should lead to consequences. A licensing scheme could be considered
for commercial shoots above a certain size, shooting above a certain number of
days. However, this should be formulated in conjunction with the shooting
industry to ensure decisions are not made that can cause irreparable damage to
businesses, as was seen in the case of the general licence survey issues in Spring
2019, potentially exacerbating the conflicts between those for and against
shooting. Ensuring smaller commercial enterprises, shooting fewer, smaller days
as part of their business diversification have a less burdensome regime to ensure
compliance with good practice, will allow the positive benefits of shooting as a
diversification of farm income to continue within reasonable guidelines, whilst
minimising any negative impacts. Failure to recognise the importance of
following good practice and stopping poor practice risks widening the conflicts
between those who shoot and those that do not.
19
9 Use the social
impact framework
developed in this
research to allow
the true value to
society of DGS
social impacts to
be measured and
also facilitate
comparison
between different
shoot types and
sizes.
This study has shown that the use of a social impact framework would be the best
way to measure and compare the social impact of different shoot sizes and types,
in line with recommended SIA procedures. However, in order to use a framework
effectively, an assessment would need to be made of the number of large
commercial, small commercial and syndicate/family shoots across the UK. This
data does not currently exist, particularly in relation to syndicate and family
shoots. Any social impact valuation would need to be completed by an
independent consultant who does not participate in DGS to avoid bias.
10 To ensure the
voices of those
participating in
DGS are heard in
balance with those
against, in spite of
their lack of media
expertise, and that
any decisions on
future
regulation/restricti
on are based on
evidence.
This study has shown that even when evidence is reviewed independently, as in
the case of the National Resources Wales consultation, and recommendations are
made to allow game shooting to continue, a single voice against can unduly
influence any decisions. This leads to feelings of powerlessness amongst those
who feel under-represented and under-equipped to challenge decisions through
modern communication channels. Instead, a more balanced approached should
be taken, considering the evidence. The National Trust has taken such an
approach, balancing the views of those for and against shooting and continuing
to allow shooting on its land that has a link to heritage and is in line with the ethos
of the organisation.
20
3.3 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH AREAS
This study was unable to consider the impact of DGS, particularly larger commercial shoots, on those that
live in a shoot area, but perhaps do not participate in DGS. A study could be completed in the areas where
the shoots took place. However, it is likely a simple survey would need to be administered in hard copy
via post in the surrounding area, as online contacts are not available for this group of people and the
response rate for hard copies in this study was low. The use of local area forums (such as Next Door) and
local area handbooks to promote any future survey could also be explored. This further research would
provide a wider perspective and consider whether living in the vicinity of a shoot impacts mental health
and well-being negatively or positively for example.
An assessment of the total number of driven game shoots within the UK would enable a more accurate
comparison of the value of the social impact of DGS, taking into account all of the factors detailed in this
chapter. This study produced a framework for valuing the social impacts of participation in DGS as shown
in Figure 3.2 in section 3.2. Some potential financial values for the social impact of DGS participation in
are given in section 3.2.
It would be useful to value the social impact of different types and sizes of shoot. Syndicate shoots would
be the most obvious area for initial valuation within the UK, as they have been considered very little in
previous research, which has focussed on economic and environmental impacts of primarily commercial
shoots. Syndicate shoots have a potentially greater impact on participants’ mental health and well-being,
especially for those aged 55 year and with stronger friendships/bonding social capital, providing stronger
social support and less division, via stronger bridging social capital. This means a greater proportion of
any social impact value could be attributed to syndicate shoots. This can only be confirmed once further
research has been completed into the distribution of shoots of different sizes and types across the UK.
They also had fewer potential negative impacting factors. The syndicate shoot provides most impact to
those who are older, important in an ageing society with rural populations ageing more quickly than urban
populations.
21
4 REFERENCES
Bank of England (2019) Daily Exchange Rates. Available at:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Rates.asp?Travel=NIxAZx&into=EUR (Accessed:
11 February 2020).
Burdge, R. and Johnson, S. (1998) ‘Social impact assessment: developing the basic model’. In Burdge, R.
(ed.), A conceptual approach to social impact assessment. Middleton-Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press.
Dahlgren, G. and Whitehead, M. (1991) Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health.
Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goeran_Dahlgren/publication/5095964_Policies_and_strategies_
to_promote_social_equity_in_health_Background_document_to_WHO_-
_Strategy_paper_for_Europe/links/569540f808aeab58a9a4d946.pdf (Accessed: 9 April 2018).
Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2005) Environmental Stewardship Higher
Level Stewardship Handbook Terms and conditions and how to apply. Available at: www.defra.gov.uk
(Accessed: 9 June 2020).
Dobbs, R. et al. (2014) Overcoming obesity: An initial economic analysis The McKinsey Global Institute.
Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Economic Studies
TEMP/Our Insights/How the world could better fight
obesity/MGI_Overcoming_obesity_Full_report.ashx (Accessed: 10 April 2018).
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (2018) Game - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. Available
at: https://www.gwct.org.uk/game/ (Accessed: 7 March 2018).
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) (2020a) Guides and Factsheets - Game and Wildlife
Conservation Trust. Available at: https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/guides/ (Accessed: 26 June 2020).
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) (2020b) ‘Moorland Conservationists: The Untold Story –
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’. Available at: https://www.gwctshop.org.uk/products/moorland-
conservationists-the-untold-story (Accessed: 26 June 2020).
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) (2020c) THE CODE OF GOOD SHOOTING PRACTICE.
Hehenberger, L., Harling, A.-M. and Scholten, P. (2014) GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement:
Proposed Approaches to Social Impact Measurement in the European Commission legislation and
practice relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI. Brussels. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/expert-group/social_impact/140605-sub-
group-report_en.pdf (Accessed: 19 December 2017).
Hillyard, S. and Marvin, G. (2017) Natural Resources Wales Consultation Evaluation Report. Available at:
https://naturalresources.wales/media/683949/paper-4-external-assurance-report-hillyard-and-marvin-
2017.pdf (Accessed: 6 February 2018).
Humphreys, R. (2010) ‘Game birds: The ethics of shooting birds for sport’, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy.
Routledge, 4(1), pp. 52–65. doi: 10.1080/17511320903264198.
Hutchinson, M. (2011) Pheasant Shooting: Bad for Pheasants, Worse for Humans?, Practical Ethics,
University of Oxford. Available at: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/10/pheasant-shooting-bad-
for-pheasants-worse-for-humans/ (Accessed: 26 June 2020).
22
League Against Cruel Sports (2020) Shooting. Available at: https://www.league.org.uk/shooting
(Accessed: 1 June 2020).
Leong, K. S. and Wilding, J. P. (1999) ‘Obesity and diabetes’, Best Practice & Research Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism. Baillière Tindall, 13(2), pp. 221–237. doi: 10.1053/BEEM.1999.0017.
Maccagnan, A. et al. (2019) ‘Wellbeing and Society: Towards Quantification of the Co-benefits of
Wellbeing’, Soc Indic Res, 141, pp. 217–243. doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1826-7.
Marvin, G. (2006) ‘Wild killing: Contesting the animal in hunting’, Killing Animals, pp. 10–29.
Press Association (2014) ‘Cost of obesity “greater than war, violence and terrorism” - Telegraph’, The
Telegraph (online), 20 November. Available at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11242009/Cost-of-obesity-greater-than-war-violence-
and-terrorism.html (Accessed: 13 June 2018).
Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC) (2012) The Role of Game Shooting in Exmoor Final
Report. Available at: www.pacec.co.uk (Accessed: 5 February 2018).
Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC) (2014) The Value of Shooting: The economic,
environmental, and social benefits of shooting sports in the UK.
Public Health England (PHE) (2016) Health matters: getting every adult active every day. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-getting-every-adult-active-every-
day/health-matters-getting-every-adult-active-every-day (Accessed: 10 June 2020).
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) (2014) ‘RSPCA policies on animal
welfare’.
The Scottish Government (2003) Let’s Make Scotland More Active - A strategy for physical activity.
Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/47032/0017726.pdf (Accessed: 9 May 2018).
UK Government (2020a) Countryside Stewardship - GOV.UK. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/countryside-stewardship (Accessed: 9 June 2020).
UK Government (2020b) Environmental Stewardship: guidance and forms for agreement holders -
GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/environmental-stewardship-
guidance-and-forms-for-existing-agreement-holders (Accessed: 9 June 2020).
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The objectives of this paper are twofold. First, it reviews the empirical evidence showing the existence of linkage between wellbeing and possible co-benefits, investigating in particular the positive effect that happiness and life satisfaction can have on health, social outcomes, employment, education and environmental behaviours. Second, it presents the valuation methods that have been proposed in the literature to place a monetary value on these outcomes. With wellbeing having become more and more relevant for individuals and policy makers, the full understanding of the co-benefits of wellbeing is central for the design and development of wellbeing interventions. As a consequence, the evaluation of the co-benefits of wellbeing is of crucial importance for the appropriate allocation of resources towards such strategies.
Article
Full-text available
This paper aims to provide an ethical assessment of the shooting of animals for sport. In particular, it discusses the use of partridges and pheasants for shooting. While opposition to hunting and shooting large wild mammals is strong, game birds have often taken a back seat in everyday animal welfare concerns. However, the practice of raising game birds for sport poses significant ethical issues. Most birds shot are raised in factory-farming conditions, and there is a considerable amount of evidence to show that these birds endure extensive suffering on these farms. Considering the fact that birds do have interests, including interests in life and not suffering, what are the ethical implications of using them for blood sports? Indeed, in the light of the suffering that game birds endure in factory farms, it may be that shooting such birds for sport is more morally problematic than other types of hunting and shooting which many people are often fiercely opposed to, for while it seems plausible to say that some animals may be harmed more by death than others (due to, say, their greater capacities), there may be harms that are worse than death (such as a life of intolerable suffering). The objective of this paper is to assess the ethics of shooting animals for sport, and in particular the practice of raising game birds for use in blood sports, by applying principles commonly used in ethics; specifically the principle of non-maleficence and equal consideration of (like) interests.
Article
Full-text available
This is the second in a series of discussion papers from the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The first covers concepts and principes of equity in relation to health, and should be read in conjunction with this paper (Whitehead 1990). The present paper sets out to develop the discussion further by outlining a strategic approach to promote greater equity in health between different social and occupational groups. This draws on the work of WHO advisory groups and associated litterature listed at the back, together with practical examples from industrialized countries where strategies have been put into action. The first part (section 1-9) of the paper outlines why equity is seen as a priority and distinguishes different policy levels for interventions. Specific equity aspects related to each policy level are then highlighted as well as some case studies. The second part of the paper (section 10-14) deals with putting policy into practice. Special attention is then paid to the need for comprehensive approaches to combat social and occupational inequities in health as illustrated in terms of a strategy matrix. Furthermore the democratice process within which healthy public policies are to be discussed and determined is discussed as well as organizational aspects as regards the implementation of an equity oriented health policy. Finally checklists are presented focusing upon how to make things happen.
Conference Paper
Video-based media spaces are designed to support casual interaction between intimate collaborators. Yet transmitting video is fraught with privacy concerns. Some researchers suggest that the video stream be filtered to mask out potentially sensitive ...
Article
Obesity, particularly truncal obesity, is closely correlated to the prevalence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Plasma leptin, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and non-esterified fatty acid levels are all elevated in obesity and play a role in causing insulin resistance. Diabetic glycaemic control and insulin resistance improve with reductions in obesity, but the treatment of obesity is difficult, and sustained weight reduction rarely occurs with dietary management alone. Hypocaloric diets should be combined with education and low-impact exercise, as well as behavioural techniques used to encourage long-term changes. Weight-reducing drugs have a role in the management of obesity but only as part of such a total package. Newer anti-obesity drugs such as orlistat and sibutramine are well tolerated and have been shown to improve glycaemic control in diabetes. It is probable that drugs developed in the future will act at different sites in the pathways regulating body weight, but they may have to be used in combination.
Daily Exchange Rates
  • England
England (2019) Daily Exchange Rates. Available at: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Rates.asp?Travel=NIxAZx&into=EUR (Accessed: 11 February 2020).
Social impact assessment: developing the basic model
  • R Burdge
  • S Johnson
Burdge, R. and Johnson, S. (1998) 'Social impact assessment: developing the basic model'. In Burdge, R. (ed.), A conceptual approach to social impact assessment. Middleton-Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press.
Overcoming obesity: An initial economic analysis The McKinsey Global Institute
  • R Dobbs
Dobbs, R. et al. (2014) Overcoming obesity: An initial economic analysis The McKinsey Global Institute. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Economic Studies TEMP/Our Insights/How the world could better fight obesity/MGI_Overcoming_obesity_Full_report.ashx (Accessed: 10 April 2018).
Game -Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (2018) Game -Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. Available at: https://www.gwct.org.uk/game/ (Accessed: 7 March 2018).
GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement: Proposed Approaches to Social Impact Measurement in the European Commission legislation and practice relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI
  • L Hehenberger
  • A.-M Harling
  • P Scholten
Hehenberger, L., Harling, A.-M. and Scholten, P. (2014) GECES Sub-group on Impact Measurement: Proposed Approaches to Social Impact Measurement in the European Commission legislation and practice relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI. Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/expert-group/social_impact/140605-subgroup-report_en.pdf (Accessed: 19 December 2017).