Part III: Conservation and Management372
involvement and feedback will be implemented in wildlife con-
servation and management. Enhancing transparency, sharing
information, providing communication material, and clarify-
ing the expectations of both communities and decision makers
can avoid human–human controversies becoming more deep-
rooted and making the participatory approach more successful
(Madden & McQuinn 2014).Political Will and Capacity
While the importance of including the public in wildlife deci-
sion-making processes is widely acknowledged, hesitation still
exists about engaging citizens and sharing power with them
(Marega & Urataric 2011; Madden & McQuinn 2014).
Reluctance can be due to a lack of willingness and ability to fol-
low through with conservation/management approaches or
policy, especially when implementing specific actions is costly,
challenging, and not supported by part of the voting constitu-
ency (Carbonetti et al. 2014). Gaps in policies and political
instability further constrain the integration of HDW into wild-
life mandates. When political turnover is high and support
toward participatory approaches discontinuous, it is difficult
to undertake legislation changes, set long-term strategic direc-
tions, secure funding to keep citizens involved, and enforce
participatory approaches (Carbonetti et al. 2014). Additional
constraints to effective participatory processes are related to lack
of political capacity. Limited abilities and resources to make and
enforce given policies and actions may hinder authorities’ abil-
ity to include public insights in decision-making processes, thus
reducing the effectiveness of participatory approaches. To avoid
such a situation, it is important to plan a specific approach that
matches the political will and capacity of the context in which
human–wildlife interactions occur.Lack of Continuity
Lack of political will and capacity may result in rushed, short-term
and poorly designed public engagement. Participatory approaches
may be used as a one-time activity or executed superficially to fulfil
the immediate needs or requirements of agencies. Yet, long- lasting
success is based on dialogue and relationship building with the
public (Madden & McQuinn 2014; Dovers et al. 2015). A long-
term commitment is therefore needed from authorities to start
building trust with communities, to carry effective public engage-
ment forward, and to develop durable solutions.Conclusion
Collecting baseline data on public attitudes toward wildlife
and its management is often considered enough to understandpeoples’ perceptions toward wildlife issues (Glikman & Frank
2011). Nonetheless, attitudinal data do not always enable deci-
sion makers to fully comprehend wildlife management and
conservation challenges as social dynamics and community
needs are rarely explored in depth and almost never from a
variety of perspectives (Bath 1996; Madden 2004). To over-
come this issue, decision makers can undertake more inclu-
sive HDW processes. Yet, citizen involvement can stall after
an initial consultation of participants if the political will and
capacity to share power is missing (Glikman & Frank 2011;
Frank et al. 2015). Thorough HDW processes are desperately
needed for developing effective wildlife conservation and
management. Future research should therefore focus on better
integrating HDW outcomes in wildlife conservation and man-
agement planning. Public involvement, if well designed and
executed, enables overcoming group differences, increases
participant ownership of the outcomes, and fosters commit-
ment toward wildlife management and conservation projects
(Messmer 2000; Wilson 2008; Dovers et al. 2015). Through
well-planned and executed HDW approaches, decision makers
can clarify the tasks of the park and the responsibilities of local
communities toward wildlife and the protected area. Problems
raised by the lack of institutional stability and resources can be
addressed while engaging the public. By acknowledging and
addressing these types of problems with citizens, long-term
partnerships can be created as wildlife conservation and man-
agement will be based on shared information, transparency,
trust, and positive attitudes between local communities and
decision makers.
With increasing human populations and recovering wildlife
species, human–wildlife interactions are inevitable (Woodroffe
et al. 2005). If decision makers want to address conflicts, espe-
cially with problematic species such as wild boar, they need to
go beyond standard management by sharing responsibilities
and ownership of management and conservation projects. As a
matter of fact, ‘effective management is not only about reducing
impacts, it is also about listening to people living with wildlife’
(Frank et al. 2015, p. 723). HDW approaches have the poten-
tial to complement sound biological science with insights on
peoples’ values, beliefs, and attitudes toward wild species, thus
making a real difference between developing of a supported
or opposed conservation/management approach. Successful
wildlife projects and programmes are indeed about embody-
ing species conservation/management with local community
engagement in an equal way, as ultimately people living with
wildlife will decide whether to tolerate more or less animals in
their ‘backyard’ (Frank 2016).References
Amici, A. & Serrani, F. (2004). Linee guida
per la gestione del cinghiale (Sus scrofa)
nella Provincia di Viterbo. Viterbo, Italy:
Università della Tuscia, Dipartimento di
Produzioni Animali – Provincia di Viterba,
Assessorato Agricoltura, Caccia e Pesca.
Apollonio, M., Mattioli, L., Scandura, M.,
et al. (2004). Wolves in the CasentinesiForests: insights for wolf conservation
in Italy from a protected area with a
rich wild prey community. Biological
Conservation 120: 249–260.
ARP. (2010). The wildlife management
in protected areas of Lazio region.
Unpublished report, Regional Park
Agency of Lazio Region, Italy.Badino, D. (2007). Studio pr un progetto
di human dimension nel comune
di Amatrice (RI): pianificazione e
realizzazione di un’indagine conoscitiva.
Parco Nazionale del Gran Sasso e dei
Monti della Laga, Assergi (AQ). Retrieved
from http://www.gransassolagapark.it/Pdf/
progetti/PNGSLprogetti107-1.pdf..03512:55:49