Human dimensions of wild boar: The need to include people in decision-making processes

Abstract

Human-wildlife encounters worldwide have changed in number and frequency as human-wildlife boundaries have become indistinct (Woodroffe 2000; Choudhury 2004; Jenkins & Keal 2004; Madden 2004; Woodroffe et al. 2005; Messmer 2009). Black bears (Ursus americanus) in campgrounds (Gore et al. 2007), raccoons (Procyon lotor) in residential gardens and garages (Miller et al. 2000), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in suburban areas (Lauber & Knuth 2004; Raik et al. 2005) are just a few common examples of today’s human-wildlife interactions. While the presence of a deer near a human settlement might be tolerated, a species perceived as a threat (i.e. coyotes) or a pest (i.e. raccoon) close to a community can be considered unacceptable relative to human livelihood and well-being (Gore et al. 2005; Kaltenborn et al. 2006). Negative experiences with wildlife, concerns about safety risks, economic issues, and competition with wildlife species for space and resources can lead to the rise of human-wildlife conflicts (Reynolds & Tappen 1996; Kaczensky 1999), making species conservation and management goals difficult to achieve. For wild boar (Sus scrofa), tailoring management efforts to the physical impact caused by the species on nature and people might not be enough, as wild boar are ecologically important for wolf conservation (Meriggi & Lovari 1996; Apollonio et al. 2004), a ‘pest’ that causes considerable damages (Massei et al. 2011; Putman et al. 2011), and an important game species (Toigo et al. 2008; Tsachalidis & Hadjisterkotis 2008; Scillitani et al. 2010). By not considering the different and often contrasting social, cultural, and economic values and interests associated with this species (Woodroffe et al. 2005; Decker et al. 2012), applied strategies can inadvertently intensify conflicts over wild boar management (Frank et al. 2015). Engaging the public in the species decision-making processes is therefore key to tailoring management to specific social contexts, especially when controversial tools such as wild boar population control are needed. The field of human dimensions of wildlife (HDW) has arisen to provide a better understanding of the social factors influencing human perceptions toward wildlife. This discipline examines how people value wildlife, want wildlife to be managed, and affect or are affected by wildlife and wildlife management decisions (Decker et al. 2012).