Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond standard wildlife management: a pathway to encompass human dimension findings in wild boar management

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Around the Regional Nature Reserve Nazzano-Tevere-Farfa in Central Italy, wild boar ecological and economic impacts have increased over the last decade, creating the need for an integrated wildlife management approach. Since 2006, park authorities have used an average of 17 % of the yearly protected area budget for compensation and 5 % for preventive measures. Additionally, 14 wild boar/km2 were culled in 2009. While the management tools used in the protected area were effective in reducing the species’ impacts, they did not decrease human-wild boar controversies. To understand the reasons behind such conflicts, user opinions toward the wildlife management approaches used (i.e., preventive measures, compensation, capture, and removal) and planned (i.e., culls) in Nazzano-Tevere-Farfa were explored. Face-to-face interviews were carried out with the general public (n = 288), hunters (n = 57), and farmers (n = 107) in 2009–2010. Differences in attitudes toward preventive measures (χ2(8) = 40.35, p < .001), compensation (χ2(8) = 34.11, p < .001), capture and removal (χ2(8) = 98.23, p < .001), and culls (χ2(8) = 77.10, p < .001) were highlighted by Chi-square analysis. The Potential for Conflict Index showed that, overall, park users supported preventive measures and compensation, but not capture and removal and culls. Workshops organized with hunters and farmers in 2010 highlighted that park authorities had not considered user expectations when planning wild boar management. If decision makers want to address conflicts, they need to go beyond standard management by tailoring their practices to the specific social context in which they work. Effective management is not only about reducing impacts, it is also about listening to people living with wildlife.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apollonio M, Mattioli L, Scandura M, Mauri L, Gazzola A, Avanzinelli E (2004) Wolves in the Casentinesi Forests: insights for wolf conservation in Italy from a protected area with a rich wild prey community. BiolConserv 120(2):249–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21th century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • ARP (2010)The wildlife management in protected areas of Lazio region. Unpublished report, Regional Park Agency of Lazio Region, Italy

  • Barrios-Garcia M, Ballari S (2012) Impact of wild boar Sus scrofa in its introduced and native range: areview. Biol Invasions 14:2283–2300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertolino S, Angelici C, Scarfò F, Muratore S, D’Amato L, Monaco E, Capizzi D, Monaco A, (2010) Is the wild boar an important nest predator in wetland areas? An experiment with dummy nests. Proceedings of 8th International Symposium on Wild boar and other suids.http://www.riservamacchiatonda.org/site/macchiatonda_consipa_it/poster_York.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2014

  • Bodenchuk MJ (2007) IPM and IWDM: Is there a difference? Hum Wild interact paper 84

  • Bronner SJ (2008) Killing tradition: inside hunting and animal rights controversies. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevali L, Scacco M (2009) Indagine sull’atteggiamento della popolazione residente e non nei confronti del Cinghiale (Sus scrofa) nel Parco Regionale dei Colli Euganei Relazione tecnica n. 3.3. IstitutoNazionale Fauna Selvatica, Italy

  • Creswell JW (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Sage, California

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Antoni S, Lugari A (2005) Guida ai servizi delle aree naturali protette del Lazio. Riserva Naturale Nazzano-Tevere-Farfa. Beta Tipografica s.r.l., Italy

  • Dandy N, Ballantyne S, Moseley D, Gill R, Quine C (2011) Preferences for wildlife management methods among the peri-urban public in Scotland. Eur J Wildl Res 57:1213–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker DJ, Riley SJ, Siemer WF (2012) Human dimensions of wildlife management, 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank B, Bath AJ (2012) Does it matter where people live? Wildlife management across protected area boundaries. SAMPAA 1:12–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Frassanito AG (2005) Verso la gestione partecipativa della problematica cinghiale nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Dissertation, Univesità degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

  • Glikman JA, Frank B (2011) Human dimensions of wildlife in Europe: the Italian way. Hum Dim Wildl 16(5):368–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green D, Askins GR, West PD (1997) Public opinion: obstacle or aid to sound deer management. WildlSoc Bull 25:367–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Hazebroek E (1996) Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe. ConservBiol 10:1059–1067

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall D, Hall I (1996) Practical Social Research: project work in the community. Macmillan Press LTD, Malaysia

    Google Scholar 

  • ISTAT (2004) Rapporto annuale 2004. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. http://www.istat.it. Accessed 1 march 2009

  • Jacobson SK, Duff MD (1998) Training Idiot Savants: The Lack of Human Dimensions in Conservation Biology. Conserv Bio 12(2):263–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins J, Keal A (2004) The Aditondack atlas. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Teel TL (2003) The potential for conflict index: a graphic approach to practical significance of human dimensions research. Hum Dim Wildl 8:219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Brown PJ, Decker DJ, Dike EA (2009) Wildlife and society: the science of human dimensions. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascia BM, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, Mc Kean MA, Turner NJ (2003) Conservation and the Social Sciences. Conser Bio 17:649–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massei G, Genov PV (2004) The environmental impact of wild boar. Galemys 16:135–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Massei G, Sugoto R, Bunting R (2011) Too many hogs? A review of methods to mitigate impact by wild boar and feral hogs. Hum WildlInterac 5(1):79–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gacic D, Šprem N, Kamler J, Baubet E, Hohman H, Monaco A, Ozolins J, Cellina S, Podgorski T, Fonseca C, Markov N, Pokorny B, Rosell C, Nahlik A( 2014) Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag. Sci., in press

  • Meriggi A, Lovari S (1996) A review of wolf predation in southern Europe: does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock? Jour ApplEcol 33:1561–1571

    Google Scholar 

  • Messmer TA (2000) The emergence of human-wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. Intern Biodet and Biodegr 45:97–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messmer TA (2009) Human-wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges and opportunities. HumWildl Conf 3:10–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaco A, Carnevali L, Toso S (2010) Linee guida per la gestione del Cinghiale (Sus scrofa) nelle aree protette. 2° edizione. Quad. Cons. Natura, 34, Min.Ambiente – ISPRA, Italy

  • Panchetti F (2003) Studio per la realizzazione di un questionario come strumento per una ricerca di human dimension of wildlife management sui conflitti generati dal cinghiale (Sus scrofa) in contesti rurali. Dissertation, Univesità degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

  • Pontuale S (2009) Human Dimension nella gestione del cinghiale nella Riserva Naturale Regionale del lago di Vico. Dissertation, Univesità degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

  • Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosell C, Navàs F, Romero S, de Dalmases I, Sforzi A, Tonini L (2011) Wild Boar in Mediterranean protected areas: managing the conflicts. http://www.iugb2011.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75. Accessed 21 June 2014

  • Rulli M, Savini S (2008) Studio di Human Dimension sulla presenza del cinghiale nel Parco Regionale di Veio. Istituto di EcologiaApplicata, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Sáez-Royuela C, Telleriá JL (1986) The increased population of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.). Europe Mammal Rev 16:97–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schley L, Roper TJ (2003) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Rev 33:43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schley L, Dufrene M, Krier A, Frantz AC (2008) Patterns of crop damage by wild boar Sus scrofa in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur J Wildlife Res 54:589–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scillitani L, Monaco A, Toso S (2010) Do intensive drive hunts affect wild boar (Sus scrofa) spatial behaviour in Italy? Some evidences and management implications. Eur J Wildl Res 56:307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin IM (1985) Survey research for geographers. Association of American Geographers, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemer WF, Lauber TB, Chase LC, Decker DJ, McPeake RJ, Jacobson CA (2004) Deer/elkmanagement actions in suburban environments: what will stakeholders accept? In: Shaw WW, Harris LK, VanDruff L (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation. http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/adjunct/snr0704/snr07042t.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2014

  • Toïgo C, Servanty S, Gaillard JM, Brandt S, Baubet E (2008) Disentangling natural from hunting mortality in an intensively hunted wild boar population. J Wildl Manage 72(7):1532–1539

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolon V, Dray S, Loison A, Zeileis A, Fischer C, Baubet E (2009) Responding to spatial and temporal variations in predation risk: space use of a game species in a changing landscape of fear. Can J Zool 87:1129–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treves A, Bruskotter J (2014) Tolerance for Predatory Wildlife. Science 344:476–477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsachalidis E, Hadjisterkotis E (2008) Wild boar hunting and socioeconomic trends in Northern Greece, 1993–2002. Eur J Wildl Res 54:643–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) (2002) Environmental assessment. An integrated wildlife damage management approach for the management of white-tailed deer damage in the State of Michigan. USDA-Wildlife Service

  • Vaske JJ (2008) Survey research and analysis. Application in parks, recreation and Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing, Inc, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Needham MD, Newman P, Manfredo MJ, Petchenik J (2006) Potential for conflict index: Hunters' responses to chronic wasting disease. WildlSoc Bull 34:44–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Barreto H, Shelby LB (2010) An extension and further validation of thepotential for conflict index. Leisure Sci 32:240–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner RM (2008) Applied Statistics: from bivariate through multivariate techniques. Sage, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R (2000) Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. AnimConserv 3:165–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) People and Wildlife, Conflict or coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the people living in and around the RNR-NTF who participated in our study. We are grateful for the financial support provided by the Regional Parks Agency-Lazio Region (ARP). We also wish to thank: park authorities and personnel from the RNR-NTF, GiulianoTallone, Vito Consoli, Larry Felt, Juan Herrero, Evan Edinger, Jenny Anne Glikman, Sarah Breen, and all those that have helped us in the different stages of the research and paper writing process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology Department, Oklahoma State University, 444 Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Beatrice Frank

  2. Regional Parks Agency–Lazio Region, Via del Pescaccio 96-00166, Roma, Italy

    Andrea Monaco

  3. Geography Department, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X9, Canada

    Alistair J. Bath

Authors
  1. Beatrice Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Monaco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alistair J. Bath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatrice Frank.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frank, B., Monaco, A. & Bath, A.J. Beyond standard wildlife management: a pathway to encompass human dimension findings in wild boar management. Eur J Wildl Res 61, 723–730 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0948-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0948-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation