Ecology, Conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries

Chapter 33: Human dimensions of wild boar

369

census data at the time of the study. A sample of 400 partici-
pants was chosen per site to allow results with an accuracy of
95 per cent (Sheskin 1985; Vaske 2008).
For the purpose of this example, exploratory statistics were
used to describe CNP and RNR NTF residents’ existence beliefs
(i.e. future generation, existence, coexistence) and attitudes
toward four management options (i.e. total protection, preven-
tive measures, capture and release, culling). All analyses were
performed with SPSS version 20 (SPSS 2012). The second gen-
eration of the Potential for Conflict Index (PCI 2 ) was used to
show through a visual technique the degree of potential conflict
(i.e. no conflict = 0; total conflict = 1) and support (i.e. no support =
bubble below neutral axis; support = bubble over neutral axis) of
participants toward a specific question (Vaske 2008; Frank et al.
2015). To calculate the PCI 2 values, we used the software available
at http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~jerryv/PCI2/index.htm.
Data collection was conducted in 2008 in CNP and in 2009
in RNR NTF. A total of 706 residents were contacted in CNP
to have 400 participants in the survey, with an overall response
rate of 57 per cent. In RNR NTF, 601 residents were contacted
to obtain a sample of 400 participants, with an overall response
rate of 66 per cent. The proportion of males to females, as well
as age groups, was similar and reflected the demographics of the
two study areas (see Frank & Bath 2012 and Frank et al. 2015 for
more information).
In both areas, most participants agreed with the statements
that the species should be maintained for future generations
(CNP = 91 per cent; RNR NTF = 58 per cent) and recognized
the existence value of wild boar (CNP = 93 per cent; RNR
NTF = 58 per cent). Respondents were split between willing to
coexist (CNP = 45 per cent; RNR NTF = 29 per cent), being neu-
tral (CNP = 45 per cent; RNR NTF = 32 per cent), and being
in conflict (CNP = 10 per cent; RNR NTF = 39 per cent) with
wild boar. The PCI 2 was performed to further explore partici-
pants’ existence beliefs toward wild boar (Figure 33.2). CNP

respondents were supportive and homogeneous as a group in

their beliefs surrounding future generation (PCI 2 = 0.11), exist-

ence (PCI 2 = 0.06) and coexistence (PCI 2 = 0.13). This was not

the case for people living in RNR NTF, who were less positive

and more heterogeneous as a group in regard to beliefs sur-

rounding future generation (PCI 2 = 0.37), existence (PCI 2 =

0.38), and coexistence (PCI 2 = 0.4). No statistical difference was

found between the PCI 2 values of the two areas regarding these

three variables. This result is likely due to the fact that in each

area individuals hold different existence beliefs toward the spe-

cies. Such heterogeneity in opinion created the similar potential

for conflict over existence beliefs between CNP and RNR NTF.

While the majority of CNP respondents supported the total

protection of the species within the protected area (72 per cent),

only 27 per cent of RNR NTF participants agreed with this

statement. In both areas, the public was in favour of providing

preventive methods for wild boar damage (CNP = 51 per cent;

RNR NTF = 73 per cent). Most CNP residents opposed capture

and removal (63 per cent) and culling (63 per cent) of wild boar.

There were conflicting opinions toward wild boar population

management in RNR NTF, with participants supporting capture

and removal (58 per cent) of the species, but being split about

culling (46 per cent) or not (41 per cent) the species within the

park boundaries. The PCI 2 for CNP shows that the more the

management option proposed is oriented toward harming wild

boar, the less supportive and homogeneous participants become

(Figure 33.3). This pattern is not mirrored in the PCI 2 results

of RNR NTF, with participants not supporting the total protec-

tion of wild boar (PCI 2 = 0.29), supporting preventive methods

(PCI 2 = 0.19) and capture and removal (PCI 2 = 0.35), and being

split about culling (PCI 2 = 0.41) the species. Once again, no

statistical difference was found between the four management

items when comparing the PCI 2 values obtained for the two

areas. Heterogeneity in opinion within groups resulted in a

comparable potential for conflict between CNP and RNR NTF.

CNP

RNR NTF

StronglyAgree 2

Strongly
Disagree

Future

generations

belief

0.37

0.38

0.4

0.13

0.06

0.11

Existence

belief

Coexistence

belief

Neutral

1

0

–1

–2

Figure 33.2 Potential for Conflict

Index (PCI 2 ) for Circeo National Park

(CNP) and the Regional Nature Reserve

Nazzano-Tevere-Farfa (RNR NTF) on

existence beliefs toward wild boar

(i.e. future generation, existence,

coexistence).

.035

12:55:49