• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Frames of wild boar by human inhabitants from Epe and Heerde (Veluwe), the Netherlands Axel Buijs March 2014 Supervisors: MSc. S. H. (Susan) Boonman-Berson, PhD Candidate Wageningen UR, Forest and Nature Policy Group Dr. ir. B. H. M. (Birgit) Elands Wageningen UR, Forest and Nature Policy Group Frames of wild boar by human inhabitants of Epe and Heerde (Veluwe), the Netherlands Axel Buijs Registration Number: 861112151120 Wageningen University Master Thesis Forest and Nature Conservation Forest and Nature Conservation Policy group FNP-80436 Supervisors: MSc. S. H. (Susan) Boonman-Berson, PhD Candidate Wageningen UR, Forest and Nature Policy Group Dr. ir. B. H. M. (Birgit) Elands Wageningen UR, Forest and Nature Policy Group ii Abstract In human-wildlife conflict studies, the focus is mainly on the damage caused by wildlife and/or on the social context of the conflict. Both approaches are legitimate choices, because damage of wildlife is in most cases where the conflict originates from and the perceived conflict mitigation or solution is in most cases located in the social context. However, in these studies geographical space is not included as an explicit element of the human-wildlife conflict. It is mentioned in some studies, but not as an integral part of the conflict. While human-wildlife conflicts are spatially bounded; where wildlife is present and has its activities determines whether there is a conflict or not. In this study, geographical space is included as an explicit part of the human-wild boar conflict on the Veluwe (the Netherlands). On the Veluwe, the area where wild boar and humans live overlap, resulting in human-wild boar conflicts. The conflicts mainly entail damage and traffic accidents caused by wild boar. This is reflected in the wild boar management; in order to limit the damage caused by wild boar, population control (culling) and limiting the movement of wild boar (e.g. placing fences) are applied. It is not clear whether the humans that live on the Veluwe share this view on wild boar wild boar management. Not including their viewpoints can imply that there is a discrepancy in how local inhabitants and policy makers/managers think of the human-wild boar conflict. This in turn can result in little support for the wild boar management in place and protests against it. This study focuses on two towns located on the Veluwe, namely Epe and Heerde. A human-wild boar conflict occurs there; wild boar get as close as the fences surrounding the private gardens, and sometimes even get inside the gardens and cause damage. In order to keep wild boar out of Epe, the municipality of Epe has approved the plan to build a fence. There have been protests (e.g. discussion evenings, complaints) against this fence, by both inhabitants from Epe and local associations. There was a public participation event about the fence, though only on the route and not the fence itself. The protests and the contents of the public participation event suggest that in the fencing decision the viewpoints of the local inhabitants are not included. Analyzing how the inhabitants of Epe and Heerde perceive wild boar management and the planned fencing of Epe is an important result of this study, although not the main aim. The main aim of this study is to understand how these perceptions are related to the specific social and geographical context of Epe and Heerde. Especially the planned fencing of Epe makes this specific context important to include. How the inhabitants think of the relationship between humans and nature/wild boar is included to better understand how wild boar, wild boar management and the fence are perceived. Frames are used to analyze and categorize the perceptions, resulting in 'wild boar frames'. Social space is part of these frames, in order to include the social context of Epe and Heerde. Geographical space is part of these frames, in order to include the geographical context of Epe and Heerde. The HaN-scale is the concept that is used in the frames, to include people's perception of the relationship between humans and nature/wild boar. Frames and these three concepts are used to answer the main research question of this study; What wild boar frames exists among the inhabitants from Epe and Heerde and how can these frames be interpreted by social space, geographical space and the HaN-scale? A total of 20 interviews (10 in Epe, 10 in Heerde) with inhabitants have been conducted to examine how they perceive wild boar, wild boar management and the planned fencing. Additionally, a focus group evening was organized in Epe where the same topics were discussed. The study concludes with an interview that is conducted with the local association 'Behoud Kwaliteit Epe'. iii For the human-wild boar conflict, an important aspect of the context of Epe and Heerde is that most interviewees have placed their own fences or have taken other measures. This implies that wild boar caused no damage in their garden and that wild boar are not a problem for all of the interviewees. Their own measures seem to have resulted in a more lenient stance towards wild boar. Due to their own fences, the planned fence of Epe is perhaps considered as a needless solution. This might have been different if the interviewees had not already taken their own measures. This suggests that how human-wildlife conflicts are perceived by local inhabitants, is tightly related to the magnitude of the damage caused by wildlife and the availability/affordability of solutions (e.g. own fences around garden). The protests prior to and after the fencing decision was made, indicates that there is a discrepancy between what some inhabitants of Epe want (no fence) and what the municipality wants (the fence). This is reflected in this study, where some interviewees from Epe stated that in its fencing decision the municipality of Epe did not consider their viewpoints. The public participation corresponds with this; some interviewees consider it as a sham, because it was only about the route and not the fence itself. This notion is confirmed in the interview with the local association Behoud Kwaliteit Epe. This study draws no quantitative conclusions, but there are signs that support for the fence does not apply to most inhabitants. The main conclusion drawn in this study is that, in the human-wild boar conflict of Epe a general division can be identified for the wild boar frames. This division is about what makes up the problem for the interviewees; the main problem is either related to wild boar and the effects of their presence, or wild boar are not a problem and the main problem is related to other actors and their activities. Social space is most important if the main problem is related to actors and their activities (e.g. culling, the fence). Geographical space is most important and clearly defined if the main problem is related to wild boar and the negative effects of their presence. In these wild boar frames, including geographical space was essential to understand where wild boar are a problem and where not. The relationships of the HaN-scale also reflect this division. In frames where the main problem are wild boar, the relationships that have a more instrumentalist (anthropocentric) view on nature are part of the frame. In frames where wild boar are not a problem but human activities are, the relationships that have a more intrinsic (ecocentric) view on nature are part of the frame. iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank both Susan Boonman-Berson and Birgit Elands for their support and words of advice during my thesis. Their suggestions helped me in structuring the report and results, to get to the main findings of the study and leaving aside what could be left aside. I'd like to thank them for their efforts of going through all of my written texts, of which the language is not always fluent. My appreciation and thanks also go to all the interviewees from Epe and Heerde. I was positively surprised by how openly and warmly these people are, and by their trust in letting me do an interview with them. I came unannounced to their door; letting me in and conduct an interview is not something which I have taken for granted. I was well looked after (coffee and biscuits) and I enjoyed doing the interviews with them. In addition to the interviewees from Epe and Heerde I would also like to thank all the participants of the focus group evening. Willing to share your ideas and going to the focus group evening in your spare time is praiseworthy. I also like to thank Henk Lammertink and Pepijn Schriemer from the association Behoud Kwaliteit Epe. I am thankful for them spending their time and efforts to talk me through the decision making process of the fence and the details of the local politics of the municipality of Epe. My thanks are also directed to my friends Femke Jochems, Martijn Kuller, Martiene Grootens, Edwin de Winkel, Evert-Jan Dijk and my sister Gonda Buijs. They created moments of relaxation and pleasureful distraction, which has helped to keep going on. I thank them for listening to me dragging on about the thesis work and the emotional support they gave in times of self-pity. Being in the thesis game themselves, their advice was really to the point and helpful. Last but certainly not least I would like to thank my father and mother, who gently pushed me in the right direction. At times of doubt and stress, they were always there for support and to cook delicious diners.

Load more

  87

Copy Link