IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i4p832-d1116346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing the Conflict of Human–Wildlife Coexistence: A Community-Based Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Stilianos Tampakis

    (School of Forestry and Natural Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Veronika Andrea

    (Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace, School of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Ath., Pantazidou 193, 68200 Orestiada, Greece)

  • Thomas Panagopoulos

    (Research Centre of Tourism Sustainability and Well-Being, Campus de Gambelas, University of Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal)

  • Paraskevi Karanikola

    (Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace, School of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Ath., Pantazidou 193, 68200 Orestiada, Greece)

  • Rallou Gkarmiri

    (School of Forestry and Natural Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Theodora Georgoula

    (School of Forestry and Natural Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

Abstract

One of the most recent and pressing issues for policymakers to address is the presence of wild boars in urban and rural areas. Their aggressive spread and invasion of human-populated areas have created an alarming problem as the coexistence of wild boars and people poses serious threats to human life and property. Human-caused factors, such as residential zone expansion and land use change, have exacerbated this problem. Furthermore, natural factors, such as predator reduction and climate change effects, create favorable conditions for population growth. This study sought to gain insights into citizens’ perspectives on a current issue, specifically wild boar colonization and coexistence in urban and rural settings. Between September 2021 and November 2022, a survey was conducted in two communities of northern and central Greece, addressing 800 citizens in total. Obtained through hierarchical log-linear analysis, factor analysis and two-step cluster analysis, the findings indicate that rural citizens appear to be more concerned about agricultural production losses and the high risk of road accidents, while the invasion-level perception was high in both areas. Intensive hunting has gained widespread acceptance as a management tool for wild boar populations in both urban and rural areas, while anthropocentric (EGO) and ecocentric (ECO) social groups have emerged.

Suggested Citation

  • Stilianos Tampakis & Veronika Andrea & Thomas Panagopoulos & Paraskevi Karanikola & Rallou Gkarmiri & Theodora Georgoula, 2023. "Managing the Conflict of Human–Wildlife Coexistence: A Community-Based Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:832-:d:1116346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/832/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/832/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Domenico Fulgione & Maria Buglione, 2022. "The Boar War: Five Hot Factors Unleashing Boar Expansion and Related Emergency," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    3. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    4. Diana Dushkova & Dagmar Haase, 2020. "Not Simply Green: Nature-Based Solutions as a Concept and Practical Approach for Sustainability Studies and Planning Agendas in Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-37, January.
    5. Ancuta Fedorca & Mihai Fedorca & Ovidiu Ionescu & Ramon Jurj & Georgeta Ionescu & Marius Popa, 2021. "Sustainable Landscape Planning to Mitigate Wildlife–Vehicle Collisions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    6. Pătru-Stupariu, Ileana & Nita, Andreea & Mustăţea, Mihai & Huzui-Stoiculescu, Alina & Fürst, Christine, 2020. "Using social network methodological approach to better understand human–wildlife interactions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226316529 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Andreea Ionescu & Radu Tudor & Alin-Ionuț Pleșoianu & Mioara Clius, 2022. "Online Environment as a Tool to Push Forward the Research: An Example for Landscape Disservices," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    4. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    5. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Ceddia, M.G. & Bardsley, N.O. & Goodwin, R. & Holloway, G.J. & Nocella, G. & Stasi, A., 2013. "A complex system perspective on the emergence and spread of infectious diseases: Integrating economic and ecological aspects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 124-131.
    7. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    8. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    9. Oberst, Christian & Harmsen - van Hout, Marjolein J. W., 2017. "Adoption and Cooperation Decisions in Sustainable Energy Infrastructure: Evidence from a Sequential Choice Experiment in Germany," FCN Working Papers 14/2017, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    10. Travis Warziniack & David Finnoff & Jonathan Bossenbroek & Jason Shogren & David Lodge, 2011. "Stepping Stones for Biological Invasion: A Bioeconomic Model of Transferable Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 605-627, December.
    11. Sanja Gašparović & Ana Sopina & Anton Zeneral, 2022. "Impacts of Zagreb’s Urban Development on Dynamic Changes in Stream Landscapes from Mid-Twentieth Century," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    12. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    14. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    15. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    16. Blackwood, Julie & Hastings, Alan & Costello, Christopher, 2010. "Cost-effective management of invasive species using linear-quadratic control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 519-527, January.
    17. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    18. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    19. Faruque As Sunny & Linlin Fu & Md Sadique Rahman & Zuhui Huang, 2022. "Determinants and Impact of Solar Irrigation Facility (SIF) Adoption: A Case Study in Northern Bangladesh," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Cook, David & Proctor, Wendy, 2007. "Assessing the threat of exotic plant pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 594-604, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:832-:d:1116346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.