Part III: Conservation and Management370
Beliefs and attitudes toward wild boar varied between the
two areas. CNP participants, facing less wild boar interactions,
tended to express more positive existence beliefs and were more
supportive as a group toward the species than were RNR NTF
respondents. Residents of the two areas held contrasting views
on wild boar management, especially in regard to total protec-
tion and wild boar population control. Despite those differences,
it is interesting to pinpoint that the potential for conflict (i.e. PCI 2
values) over wild boar did not significantly differ between CNP
and RNR NTF. Such a result is likely explained by the heteroge-
neous, and often contrasting, interests held by individuals within
a group over wild boar. In both areas respondents were divided
into three membership groups: the general public, farmers, and
hunters. Each of these groups held different interests toward
wild boar (Frank et al. 2015). Additionally, individuals within
the same membership group disagreed over wild boar and its
management, especially in the case of hunters (Frank et al.
2015). As a result, the potential for conflict over wild boar was
not due to the degree of controversy perceived and experienced
by the public in each area, but rather it was related to the hetero-
geneous and opposing interests of respondents within each area.
The context- and location-specific information gathered
through the surveys conducted in the two areas have provided
insights that help better understand how the public relates to
wild boar and its management. Taking advantage of the knowl-
edge generated through this HDW approach is key to imple-
menting management mandates that are not perceived as
controversial by the public, and thus are more likely to succeed
in addressing human–wild boar conflicts.Engaging the Public
The second step of the facilitated decision-making process
entailed engaging interest groups in the wild boar management
decision-making process. Two workshops were conducted in
RNR NTF as the wild boar management plan for this area was
in the process of being updated in 2010. One workshop was tai-
lored to farmers and the other to hunter groups operating in the
area. Posters advertising the workshop on wild boar and its man-
agement were displayed at farmers’ organization headquartersand hunter clubs. Participation in the workshop was voluntary.
Respectively, six farmers and 26 hunters attended the meetings.
During each workshop, data on wild boar management (i.e.
population numbers, compensation and preventive methods
supply, capture, and removal numbers) and data from the sur-
vey carried out in 2009 were shared with participants. A follow-
up meeting was organized with hunters who expressed interest
in further discussing the wild boar management to be applied
in RNR NTF.
Qualitative data were collected during the meetings to
explore the underlying reasons for wild boar conflicts in RNR
NTF. Farmer–wild boar conflicts were related to damage assess-
ment procedures and slowness in obtaining repayments once
the species had impacted agricultural land (Frank et al. 2015).
Farmers also complained about the difficulties of obtaining pre-
ventive measures. The main issues mentioned by participants
were: (1) how to apply for preventive measures; and (2) who
would be in charge of maintaining and operating the structures
provided by the protected area (Frank et al. 2015). Hunters were
instead frustrated by the lack of transparency over the wild boar
population control activities carried out inside the protected
area (i.e. number of animal culled per control session, sex ratio,
age structure) (Frank et al. 2015). They also questioned the
method used to conduct wild boar population control within
RNR NTF. During the workshop and follow-up meeting hunt-
ers expressed their willingness to support the protected area by
installing and maintaining preventive measures offered to farm-
ers, assist in wild boar monitoring, and carry out the cull inside
the protected area (Frank et al. 2015).
While carrying out the two workshops and the follow-up
meeting in RNR NTF, it became clear that conflict about wild
boar was not simply about the species. The lack of understand-
ing about management procedures, transparency, and mistrust
between interest groups and the park authorities have laid the
foundation for human–human conflicts. Such conflicts were
likely causing intensified reactions toward the species in RNR
NTF, turning any human–wild boar interaction in a controversy
and reducing the effectiveness of the species management in and
around the protected area.CNPRNR NTFStrongly^2
AgreeStrongly
DisagreeTotal
protectionProviding
preventive
methodsCapture and
removalCullingNeutral10–1–20.290.19
0.35
0.410.330.330.36
0.390- 1
0.- 41
0.2933- 19
0 0.3 5555
9Figure 33.3 Potential for Conflict Index
(PCI 2 ) for Circeo National Park (CNP) and the
Regional Nature Reserve Nazzano-Tevere-
Farfa (RNR NTF) on wild boar management
(i.e. total protection, providing preventive
measures, capture and removal, and culling)..03512:55:49