366

Chapter

33

Human Dimensions of Wild Boar: The Need to

Include People in Decision-making Processes

Beatrice Frank

Human–wildlife encounters worldwide have changed in num-

ber and frequency as human–wildlife boundaries have become

indistinct (Woodroffe 2000; Choudhury 2004; Jenkins & Keal

2004; Madden 2004; Woodroffe et  al. 2005; Messmer 2009).

Black bears (Ursus americanus) in campgrounds (Gore et  al.

2007), raccoons (Procyon lotor) in residential gardens and

garages (Miller et al. 2000), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus

virginianus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in suburban areas

(Lauber & Knuth 2004; Raik et  al. 2005) are just a few com-

mon examples of today’s human–wildlife interactions. While

the presence of a deer near a human settlement might be tol-

erated, a species perceived as a threat (i.e. coyotes) or a pest

(i.e. raccoon) close to a community can be considered unac-

ceptable relative to human livelihood and well-being (Gore

et al. 2005; Kaltenborn et al. 2006). Negative experiences with

wildlife, concerns about safety risks, economic issues, and com-

petition with wildlife species for space and resources can lead to

the rise of human–wildlife conflicts (Reynolds & Tappen 1996;

Kaczensky 1999), making species conservation and manage-

ment goals difficult to achieve.

For wild boar (Sus scrofa), tailoring management efforts to

the physical impact caused by the species on nature and peo-

ple might not be enough, as wild boar are ecologically impor-

tant for wolf conservation (Meriggi & Lovari 1996; Apollonio

et al. 2004), a ‘pest’ that causes considerable damages (Massei

et al. 2011; Putman et al. 2011), and an important game species

(Toigo et al. 2008; Tsachalidis & Hadjisterkotis 2008; Scillitani

et al. 2010). By not considering the different and often contrast-

ing social, cultural, and economic values and interests associ-

ated with this species (Woodroffe et al. 2005; Decker et al. 2012),

applied strategies can inadvertently intensify conflicts over wild

boar management (Frank et al. 2015). Engaging the public in the

species decision-making processes is therefore key to tailoring

management to specific social contexts, especially when contro-

versial tools such as wild boar population control are needed.

The field of human dimensions of wildlife (HDW) has arisen

to provide a better understanding of the social factors influenc-

ing human perceptions toward wildlife. This discipline examines

how people value wildlife, want wildlife to be managed, and affect

or are affected by wildlife and wildlife management decisions

(Decker et  al. 2012). HDW further addresses human–wildlife

interactions by involving the people directly affected by a spe-

cies in decision-making processes and by helping design aware-

ness and educational campaign programmes tailored to enhance

coexistence with wildlife (Bath 1996; Decker et al. 2001; Ericsson

et al. 2004). Integrating the public into wildlife projects is funda-

mental for effective conservation and management (Blanchard

2000; Ericsson et al. 2004), as people have distinct opinions about

whether they want more or less animals, will accept more or less

damage, and will tolerate wildlife or not. Addressing human–

species interactions is not only about the species. It is also about

listening and working with people, as society ultimately will

decide which species and how many wild animals are acceptable

in and around human-shaped landscapes.

Human Dimension of Wild Boar

The increase of human–wild boar conflicts over time has

resulted in the proliferation of studies on attitudes toward the

species and its management (Carnevali & Scacco 2009; Monaco

et  al. 2010; Frank & Bath 2012; Frank et  al. 2015). Multiple

stakeholders (i.e. hunters, farmers, the general public) have

been engaged to gain understanding about human perceptions

toward this problematic wildlife. Research on the attitudes of

Japanese hunters toward a feral crossbreed of wild boar and pig

and on hunting commercialization was presented in 1995 at

the ‘2nd International Symposium on Wild boar and on sub-

order Suiformes’ (Kanzaki & Kodera 1995; Kanzaki & Otsuka

1995). This early research was followed by surveys on hunters’

attitudes and activities in several prefectures of Japan (Kanzaki

& Ohtsuka-Ito 1997; Tamaki et  al. 1998; Harada et  al. 2001;

Ueda & Kanzaki 2005; Ebihara 2010). Hunting as a traditional

practice and major tool for wild boar population control along

with the decline in hunters were the main themes of these stud-

ies. Trends in the number of hunters, their activities, attitudes,

socioeconomic inclination, and status were explored through

other HDW research (Tsachalidis & Konstantopoulos 2006;

Tsachalidis & Hadjisterkotis 2008; Tsachalidis et al. 2008). Wild

boar hunters were compared to other hunters (Tsachalidis &

Konstantopoulos 2006; Hasanagas et al. 2009), asked to express

their values toward the species (Pontuale 2009; Frank et  al.

2015), to state their opinion about disease transmission (Vergne

et al. 2014), and to discuss their support and opposition toward

a series of management practices (i.e. compensation, preventive

measures, population control) (Frassanito 2005; Rulli & Savini

2008; Keuling 2009, 2012; Pontuale 2009; Frank et  al. 2015;

Keuling et al. 2016). Impacts caused by the species and knowl-

edge about the ecological role played by wild boar were other

key topics discussed with hunters (Rulli & Savini 2008; Pontuale

2009; Frank et al. 2015; Keuling et al. 2016).

.035

12:55:49

http://www.ebook3000.com