Chapter 33: Human dimensions of wild boar371
Sharing Responsibilities and
Decision-making Power
Based on the understanding gained through the survey and
the workshops, it was proposed to RNR NTF to address wild
boar conflicts by focusing on three main approaches. First,
park authorities were recommended to implement wild boar
management by providing technical support and guidelines
for compensation/preventive methods, shorten the repayment
procedure for damages, and more actively involve hunters in
the species management. Second, it was suggested to continue
engaging the public by developing a communication strat-
egy that addressed the gap in knowledge and rationale behind
selecting specific management techniques to control the species
(Frank et al. 2015). Mistrust toward authorities and the lack of
transparency on wild boar management were identified as main
reasons behind hunters’ negative attitudes toward RNR NTF.
Communication tailored on clarifying the reasons to undertake
culling, the number of animals being culled per control ses-
sion, the number of population control activities carried out per
year and the disposal of the culled animals was recommended
as a key activity to address conflicts. Controversies over factual
knowledge, as well as perceptions of power hierarchies related
to knowledge, are deeply ingrained in conservation conflicts, not
the least of which relates to a species that plays an important eco-
logical role, has a recreational meaning, and causes damages to
agriculture (Frank et al. 2015). Finally, as the wild boar manage-
ment plan of RNR NTF was in the process of being updated, it
was proposed to decision makers to include the HDW findings
in the new draft of the plan and further engage interest groups in
the decision-making process.
None of the recommendations proposed above were imple-
mented in RNR NTF. Several reasons can explain the failure to
include the HDW findings in the wild boar management of the
protected area. In Italy, experts and agencies are often reluctant
to share responsibility and decision-making power with the pub-
lic (Glikman & Frank 2011). When such obstacles do not exist,
policies and lack of political stability may constrain the integra-
tion of HDW into wildlife management mandates. As discussed
in Glikman and Frank (2011, p. 374) ‘the frequent political turn-
over of higher power positions (i.e. park managers and directors)
does not allow long-term planning and decision-making, thus
making HDW, as well as other management tools, inefficient’.
Social conflicts can escalate when public consultation does not
result in the inclusion of participant feedback in decision making.
Thus, the partial and short-term HDW approach carried out in
RNR NTF has generated additional public hostility and distrust
toward decision makers and park authorities.
Opportunities and Challenges of Engaging
the Public
Damage to agricultural land, wild boar–vehicle collisions, con-
flicts with stakeholders over the species management, and token
public involvement are common issues in wild boar manage-
ment within Italy and other countries (Frank et al. 2015). The
opportunities and challenges experienced while conducting the
facilitated decision-making process on wild boar in Italy can
apply in general to wild boar, as well as to other species, con-
texts, and parks. By understanding the potential and limitations
behind implementing HDW studies, decision makers will be
able to overcome potential barriers and design participatory
processes that can be successfully carried out.Opportunities of HDW Approaches
Attitudinal Data
Addressing human–wildlife interactions without knowing what
the public thinks about a species can generate conflicts, mak-
ing conservation and management approaches controversial
and unsuccessful. Through HDW surveys it is possible to better
understand the social factors influencing human dispositions
toward wildlife. Additionally, HDW surveys can provide knowl-
edge about how the public values a species and prefers it to be
protected or managed, offering decision makers an understand-
ing of which approaches will likely be supported or opposed in
a specific social setting. Such context-specific knowledge can
inform long-term wildlife planning, help address public con-
cerns early in the wildlife conservation/management process,
and suggest pathways that are less controversial, thus being
more likely to foster coexistence with wildlife.Stakeholder Engagement
Individuals within a sample group can hold different interests
toward a species. It is important to acknowledge how groups
with heterogeneous and often contrasting views relate to a spe-
cies. Such understanding can help determine the capacity in
which specific groups, also described as stakeholders or inter-
est groups, can be involved in the conservation/management of
wildlife. Further, by sharing information and actively engaging
stakeholders it is possible to clarify the tasks of the protected
area and the responsibilities of local communities toward wild-
life. Keeping stakeholders interested and engaged over time
can foster support toward conservation/management projects
and avoid the escalation of human–human conflict over wild-
life. Including citizens in decision-making processes allows the
design of shared conservation/management plans, which repre-
sent the first step toward building partnership, trust, legitimacy
and joint ownership over wildlife projects.Challenges of HDW Approaches
Public Expectations
Citizens, once consulted, expect to see their interests considered
in decision-making processes. Mostly, they anticipate that the
feedback they provided to decision makers will be included in
wildlife mandates. If clarity is missing on the purpose and use of
public consultations and participatory activities, citizens may
have incorrect expectations and may be deceived, causing resent-
ment and embitterment toward decision makers (Marega &
Urataric 2011). When planning public engagement it is therefore
key to (1) identify who should be involved in decision making;
(2) determine the extent to which citizens will be involved in
wildlife decision making; and (3) clarify to the public how public.03512:55:49