Mammalian Biology 96 (2019) 68–72 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Mammalian Biology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mambio Short communication Past experiences drive citizen perception of wild boar in urban areas Carles Conejero a , Raquel Castillo-Contreras a , Carlos González-Crespo a , Emmanuel Serrano a , Gregorio Mentaberre a,b , Santiago Lavín a , Jorge Ramón López-Olvera a,∗ a Wildlife Ecology & Health Group and Servei d’Ecopatologia de Fauna Salvatge (SEFaS), Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Edifici V, 0-327, Travessera dels Turons, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain b Departament de Ciència Animal, Escola Tècnica Superior d’Enginyeria Agraria (ETSEA), Universitat de Lleida (UdL), Lleida, Spain a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations in urban environments have increased during the last decades. This Received 22 December 2018 has led to a new scenario where humans share the space with this recent colonising species inside urban Accepted 13 April 2019 areas. Citizen perception on wild boar presence must be taken into account to assure the most suitable Available online 15 April 2019 design, application and acceptance of management measures. In order to advance in the knowledge and Handled by Francesco Ferretti comprehension of urban wild boar perception by citizens, we conducted 181 surveys to women and men representing all age classes. Our questions were focused on assessing citizen features, experiences and Keywords: attitudes regarding wild boar presence in the urban area of La Floresta (Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Sus scrofa Spain). We used a recursive partitioning approach through regression trees to explore the relationship Human-wildlife conflict between a Wild Boar Perception Score (WBPS) and citizen profile, past and current experiences involving Urban wildlife wild boars, contact with wild boars and acceptance of management measures. Classification and regression trees Our results show that the WBPS is mainly driven by previous incidents suffered by the respondent, independently of citizen profile, current experiences, level of contact and acceptance of management measures. The respondents answered that measures should be taken to minimize wild boar incidents (37%) and to help wild boars to return to their habitat (27%), whereas 16% chose to coexist with wild boars in the current conditions. Culling all the wild boars was not supported at all, even among the citizens with the most negative perception of wild boar. Citizens with positive perception of wild boar presence in urban areas contribute to reinforce the phe- nomenon by feeding wild boars. Our results verify that socio-demographic variables such as gender, education and public health concern are less important than past experiences to drive citizen percep- tion and explain resident attitudes. Information campaigns on the causes, consequences and effective management options for urban wildlife could help to improve understanding and acceptance of the cir- cumstances and currently non-socially accepted possible solutions. Evaluation of citizen perception and information campaigns should precede wildlife management measures, in order to gain acceptance by residents before being implemented. © 2019 Published by Elsevier GmbH on behalf of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde. Wild boar (Sus scrofa) has the widest geographical range of all hunting pressure in an attempt to control and reduce its popula- northern wild ungulates and this range has been greatly expanded tions has proven to be ineffective (Massei et al., 2015). by planetary-scale changes such as depopulation of rural areas, The number of wild boar records in several European cities mild winters, lack of predators and forest encroachment in some (for instance Berlin, Barcelona, Rome, Vilnius and Budapest, among areas (Vetter et al., 2015; Massei et al., 2015). Wild boar is consid- others) has also increased in the last decades (Sáez-Royuela and ered a potential invasive species and the annual intensification of Tellería, 1986; Castillo-Contreras et al., 2018). This wild boar increase in urban areas could be a consequence of exploiting anthropogenic food resources, such as refuses and waste material, food and water at public green areas and food provided by wild ∗ Corresponding author. boar feeders (Kotulski and Koenig, 2008; Castillo-Contreras et al., E-mail address: Jordi.Lopez.Olvera@uab.cat (J.R. López-Olvera). 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.04.002 1616-5047/© 2019 Published by Elsevier GmbH on behalf of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde. C. Conejero et al. / Mammalian Biology 96 (2019) 68–72 69 Inside urban areas, wild boars cause traffic accidents, damage The questionnaire (Electronic supplementary material -ESM- to courtyards, green areas and street furniture. Minor attacks have Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2) had 20 questions divided into two been recorded on humans as well as domestic pets, and they have sections, the first one aimed at characterizing the individual traits been reported to follow an increasing trend in some urban areas of the surveyed inhabitant and the second one focused on issues (Mayer, 2013; Fernández-Aguilar et al., 2018). Wild boar also pose related to wild boar presence inside the neighbourhood. Five ques- a risk of pathogen transmission, such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis tions from the second section (PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, and PS5) were complex, Salmonella enterica, Campylobacter spp., Streptococcus suis, used to calculate the Wild Boar Perception Score (WBPS) using the Rickettsia slovaca, Leptospira spp. or Chlamydophila spp.; and they formula WBPS = PS1+PS2+PS3+PS4+PS5, positively correlated with produce negative effects on plant and animal species richness and a positive perception of wild boar (the higher the WBPS, the better abundance (Jansen et al., 2007; Ortuño et al., 2007; Di Francesco the perception of wild boar). On the other hand, questions num- et al., 2013; Navarro-González et al., 2013; Mentaberre et al., 2014; ber 12, 14 and 16 served as a proxy for urban wild boar feeders Fernández-Aguilar et al., 2018). (WBfeed), people who consume wild boar (WBconsumer) and peo- Lethal measures such as culling have been proposed as suc- ple who had previously suffered incidents with wild boar (WBinc), cessful wildlife management measures in order to deal with respectively. In order to assess the relationship between citizen local overabundant populations, including the introduced Amer- profile and wild boar perception in urban areas, WBPS values were ican mink (Neovison vison) in southern England (Harrington et al., used as a continuous response variable and citizen profile variables 2009); stabilization of chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer as either continuous or categorical explanatory variables to con- (Odocoileus virginianus) in Illinois (Manjerovic et al., 2014); mitiga- struct a regression tree (ESM Table 2 and 3) using a cross-validation tion of wild boar (Sus scrofa) overpopulation in Europe, Australia method considering calibration and validation errors. Models were and the United States (Massei et al., 2011); control of bovine tuber- run in the R software version 3.5.0 (R Development Core Team, culosis infection in European badger (Meles meles) in Ireland (Abdou ¨ 2018), using “rpart(Therneau et al., 2015), “gplots” (Warnes et al., et al., 2016) or introduced coypu (Myocastor coypus) populations 2016), and “rpart.plot” (Milborrow, 2016) packages. in Italy (Panzacchi et al., 2007). In the particular case of grow- Most of the respondents (93%) liked seeing wild boar in urban ing Mediterranean wild boar populations, selective elimination areas (question number -Q- 11, PS1), and perceived wild boar pres- (culling) of juvenile and young wild boars has been recently pro- ence as a positive distinction for the neighbourhood (51%; Q17, posed as a more efficient measure than simply intensification of PS4), feeling respect (61%) and friendship (31%) for wild boars (Q13, traditional non-selective hunting pressure to control population PS2). A small proportion of citizens also found wild boar presence increase (González-Crespo et al., 2018). in urban areas positive as a local and organic protein source (6%), However, local attitudes towards wildlife are key for humans contributing to less presence of stray dogs (5%) and beneficial for and wildlife coexistence (Bencin et al., 2016), and management children as they can play together (3%, see Q17, PS4). measures acceptance varies according to different areas, human Overall, wild boar presence in urban areas was not perceived perception of the problem and different characteristics of the as negative at all by 37% of the citizens (Q18, PS5) whereas 31% affected species (Liordos et al., 2017). Therefore, to implement man- affirmed that wild boars cause some minor problems and 25% not agement measures it is essential to assess public perception of the problems at all (Q15, PS3). conflict and acceptance of the measures. Conversely, 15% of the participants agreed that wild boar pres- Wildlife presence in urban areas can modify resident perception ence in urban areas was not beneficial at all (Q17, PS4) and 27% on a cost-benefit trade-off, depending on positive or negative past of the participants thought that wild boars should live in the for- experiences with the particular species (Belaire et al., 2016; Sekhar, est (Q20). The major negative concern about wild boar presence 2003; Bencin et al., 2016; Brook and van Beest, 2014). People are a was vehicle collision risk (17%), followed by damage to urban zones part of all human-wildlife conflicts, so social research methods are (16%) and risk towards pets (7%). Finally, 7% of the participants were essential for finding solutions. Conflicts arise when the costs that worried about the risk for people related to health issues (Q18, PS5). wildlife causes to residents are more significant than benefits, sug- On Q20, regarding the potential need for management measures gesting that negative perceptions more strongly determine human to be undertaken, 37% of the answers pointed that measures should attitudes (Kansky and Knight, 2014). be taken to minimise wild boar incidents in urban areas for a better The objective of this study is to obtain information about the coexistence. The most popular option was helping the wild boars factors driving citizen perception of wild boar presence in urban to return to their habitat (27%), followed by coexisting with wild environments, providing information and tools for managers to boars in the current conditions (16%). No culling of wild boars at all deal with wild boar-related conflicts according to citizen percep- was supported by 13% of the participants, while 7% agreed on the tion and acceptance of management measures. use of contraception and 1% proposed that people should feed wild We interviewed 181 citizens, 85 women and 96 men classi- boars. Nobody supported culling all wild boars as an option. fied into five age groups: “under 18 years old” (n = 22), “18 to 30 Our regression tree analysis explained 12.2% of the observed years old” (n = 46), “31 to 45 years old” (n = 67), “46 to 60 years WBPS variability and 10% after our cross validation procedure old” (n = 39) and “over 60 years old (n = 7)”, in La Floresta (Sant (Fig. 1). The citizens with the highest WBPS (3.6) were those scor- Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain) during June and July 2015. La ing less than 0.5 points in incidents suffered (Q16, WBinc) and usual Floresta (UTM31 N/ETRS89 X: 422564, Y: 4589101) is a neighbour- or occasional feeders of wild boars. Therefore, citizens with posi- hood of 4430 inhabitants in Sant Cugat del Vallès, a municipality tive perception of wild boar presence in urban areas contributed to of the metropolitan area of Barcelona. The entire neighbourhood reinforce the phenomenon by habituating the wild boar to consume lies on the northwestern slope of Collserola Natural Park (CNP) anthropogenic food. In this case, awareness campaigns focused on within the Collserola massif. The urban area of La Floresta is hilly, the reduction of wild boar direct feeding can contribute to minimise poorly planned and structured, mostly made up of family dwellings their presence in urban areas. Conversely, citizens with a WBinc interspersed with scrubland and forest patches. Due to sociological, value of 0.5 or more, who “always” or “never” feed wild boars and environmental and urban planning reasons, a stable and habitu- have the highest education level, showed the lowest WBPS value ated wild boar population openly thrives throughout the urban (−0.18). This suggests that negative incidents determine negative area (Cahill et al., 2012). This provides an exceptional scenario of perception both for habitual feeders, who have an increased chance increased interaction between human and wild boars to study cit- of having negative interactions, as well as for citizens not particu- izen perception of urban wild boar. larly prone to interact with wild boar. 70 C. Conejero et al. / Mammalian Biology 96 (2019) 68–72 Fig. 1. Regression tree model predicting the Wild Boar Perception Score (WBPS) according to five explanatory variables detailed below. The text in each split shows the variable used to divide the dataset according to a value or category from that variable (Electronic supplementary material, Tables 2 and 3). The value at the top of each node indicates the predicted WBPS value for the citizens accomplishing the conditions leading to that node. The percentage indicates the proportion of observations included in the node. In each node the sample is split into two subgroups; the observations agreeing with the node condition are included in the left branch, whereas the ones failing to comply with the condition are included in the right branch. The first explanatory variable selected by the tree model is wild boar incidents (WBinc, Question 16). Descending left from the first node (overall WBPS = 2.1), citizens with a WBinc score of 0.5 or higher are more likely to show a lower value in WBPS (0.9) than citizens who have not suffered incidents with wild boar (WBinc < 0.5, WBPS = 2.7). Citizens with WBinc ≥0.5 who “always” or “never” feed the wild boar are more likely to show a lower value in WBPS (0.42) than the citizens into the same category who “occasionally” feed the wild boar (2.3). Among the citizens with WBinc ≥0.5 and who “always” or “never” feed wild boar, WBPS is lower (-0.18) in citizens with superior studies than without them (1.4). Citizens with WBinc <0.5 who never feed wild boar are more likely to show a lower WBPS (2.3) than the citizens who “always” or “sometimes” feed wild boar “always” or “sometimes” (3.6). Then, citizens with WBinc <0.5 who do not feed wild boar and see them “monthly” or “weekly” show a lower WBPS (2.1) than citizens who see wild boars “daily” or “never” (2.7). Within this node (WBfreq = “month” and “week”), female citizens show a lower WBPS value (2) than male citizens (2.3). Hence, our model shows that wild boar perception in urban the biased features of the sample population, with predominance areas is influenced by the past negative experiences suffered by the of higher educated (66%) and pet owners (74%), could explain this citizens. Previous studies already pointed out that negative atti- positive perception of wild boar in La Floresta in spite of the close tudes towards wildlife are associated with negative experiences contact. (Bencin et al., 2016). Furthermore, people who have suffered direct The concern about threats and risks caused by wildlife, partic- experiences are more likely to have stable, difficult-to-change atti- ularly those related to human safety, cause negative perception tudes (Browne-Nuñez et al., 2014), and direct contact leading to among residents (ESM Table 1, section 2, Q18, Browne-Nuñez et al., negative experiences involving wild boar could provoke anxiety 2014; Sakurai et al., 2013) and may more strongly determine atti- or fear in people (Baltasar et al., 2008). Thus, the negative percep- tudes than positive perceptions (Kansky and Knight, 2014). The tion of wild boar presence in urban areas is expected to rise with relative importance of costs versus benefits in determining atti- increasing negative incidents related to wild boar (Baltasar et al., tudes to different wildlife species would usefully inform about the 2008; Liordos et al., 2017). The close contact between wild boars benefits needed in order to counter the costs of living with wildlife and humans in our study area (Cahill et al., 2012) could therefore (Kansky and Knight, 2014). lead to an increasing negative perception of urban wild boar. In this specific scenario, increased tolerance may be related However, our results reveal a substantial level of tolerance to human attitudes that worsen the problem. Tolerant citizens in towards wild boar in our study area (ESM Table 1, section 2, front of wild boar presence are commonly those directly feeding Q11, Q15 and Q18), a key determinant for sustainable coexistence wild boar, which contributes to wild boar habituation to human between humans and wildlife (Bruskotter et al., 2009; Treves and presence. This human behaviour fosters the persistence of wild Bruskotter, 2014; Bencin et al., 2016). This tolerance for wildlife boar in urban areas and increases the human-wildlife conflict. is a common topic of research and a management objective in The respondents of this survey reported traffic accidents (5%) and wildlife conservation in order to decrease conflict, and there is aggressiveness towards humans (5%) and pets (12%) as negative ongoing debate on how to conceptualise this concept when con- experiences involving wild boars. The danger posed by wild boar ducting human dimension research (Browne-Nuñez et al., 2014). presence in urban areas is higher than the danger posed by other As in other published studies, our results verify again that socio- species ranging in the same conditions due to its size, weight, demographic variables such as gender, education and public health strength and tusks. The reported incidents suggest that the sus- concern are less important than past experiences to explain resi- tainable coexistence with wild boar may differ from that suitable dent attitudes (Kansky and Knight, 2014). Living in a more pleasant for other urban species with less harmful potential. residential environment in contact with nature is one of the rea- Because of the aforementioned problems, a variety of man- sons for peri-urban human migration (Ford, 1999). Altogether with agement approaches are being considered to regulate wildlife C. Conejero et al. / Mammalian Biology 96 (2019) 68–72 71 populations, ranging from attempts of complete local eradica- References tion to reduction of urban population once number or damage thresholds are exceeded (González-Crespo et al., 2018; Toger et al., Abdou, M., Frankena, K., O’Keeffe, J., Byrne, A.W., 2016. Effect of culling and vaccination on bovine tuberculosis infection in a European badger (Meles 2018). However, resident values and attitudes must be consid- meles) population by spatial simulation modelling. Prev. Vet. Med. 125, 19–30, ered if wildlife management programs are to be successful and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.12.012. sustainable (Sakurai et al., 2013). As in other studies, public pref- Baltasar, L., Caro, B., García, E., Pla, L., Tudó, M., 2008. Diagnosi ambiental de la problemàtica amb el porc senglar (Sus scrofa) al Parc de Collserola: estudi dels erences for urban wildlife management were controversial in La punts d’atracció antròpica del senglar (PAAS). Diagnosi Ambient. al Parc Floresta, and the most effective methods for reducing conflict are Collserola, 112–169. not always accepted (Liordos et al., 2017). Attempts to decrease Belaire, J.A., Westphal, L.M., Minor, E.S., 2016. Different social drivers, including perceptions of urban wildlife, explain the ecological resources in residential wild boar abundance by culling individuals could lead to public landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 401–413, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015- opposition (Toger et al., 2018), since lethal wildlife managing meth- 0256-7. ods were not widely accepted in La Floresta (ESM Table 1, Q15 to Bencin, H., Kioko, J., Kiffner, C., 2016. Local people’s perceptions of wildlife species in two distinct landscapes of Northern Tanzania. J. Nat. Conserv. 34, 82–92, Q20). However, only 13% of the population supported no killing at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.09.004. all, which means that the remaining 87% could accept some forms Brook, R.K., Van Beest, F.M., 2014. Feral wild boar distribution and perceptions of of culling. The questionnaire aimed at detecting extreme attitudes risk on the central Canadian prairies. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 38, 486–494, http://dx. towards culling (i.e, no culling acceptance at all or culling all the doi.org/10.1002/wsb.424. Browne-Nuñez, C., Treves, A., MacFarland, D., Voyles, Z., Turng, C., 2014. Tolerance wild boars), but fine-tuning questions about culling acceptance in of wolves in Wisconsin: a mixed-methods examination of policy effects on certain cases and under specific conditions could help managers to attitudes and behavioral inclinations. Biol. Conserv. 189, 59–71, http://dx.doi. design socially accepted management protocols including partial org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.016. Bruskotter, J.T., Vaske, J.J., Schmidt, R.H., 2009. Social and cognitive correlates of culling as a measure. Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. Information campaigns on the causes, consequences and effec- 14, 119–132, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200802712571. tive management options for urban wildlife could help to improve Cahill, S., Llimona, F., Cabañeros, L., Calomardo, F., 2012. Characteristics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) habituation to urban areas in the Collserola Natural Park understanding and acceptance of the circumstances and possi- (Barcelona) and comparison with other locations. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. ble solutions, but communication programs conducted by wildlife 35.2, 221–233. management organisms can be ineffective if people have distrust Castillo-Contreras, R., Carvalho, J., Serrano, E., Mentaberre, G., Fernández-Aguilar, X., Colom, A., González-Crespo, C., Lavín, S., López-Olvera, J.R., 2018. Urban in public managers (Sakurai et al., 2013). Our findings suggest that wild boars prefer fragmented areas with food resources near natural corridors. sustainable coexistence in La Floresta can be maintained if incidents Sci. Total Environ. 615, 282–288. are prevented by culling aggressive individuals and restricting wild Di Francesco, A., Baldelli, R., Donati, M., Cotti, C., Bassi, P., Delogu, M., 2013. Evidence for Chlamydiaceae and Parachlamydiaceae in a wild boar (Sus scrofa) boar access to anthropogenic resources. population in Italy. Vet. Ital. 49, 119–122. Evaluation of citizen perception and information campaigns Fernández-Aguilar, X., Gottschalk, M., Aragón, V., Càmara, J., Ardanuy, C., Velarde, should precede the application of any wildlife management mea- R., Galofré-Milà, N., Castillo-Contreras, R., López-Olvera, J.R., Mentaberre, G., sure in humanized areas (either human or rural, for wild boar or Colom-Cadena, A., Lavín, S., Cabezón, O., 2018. Urban wild boars and risk for zoonotic Streptococcus suis, Spain. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 24, 1083–1086, http://dx. for any other potentially conflictive species), in order to gain accep- doi.org/10.3201/eid2406.171271. tance by residents before being implemented. Then, measures are Ford, T., 1999. Understanding population growth in the peri-urban region. Int. J. more understood, feasible and with higher chance of succeeding. By Popul. Geogr. 5, 297–311. González-Crespo, C., Serrano, E., Cahill, S., Castillo-Contreras, R., Cabañeros, L., analysing citizen perception, it is possible to determine the human López-Martín, J.M., Roldán, J., Lavín, S., López-Olvera, J.R., 2018. Stochastic social groups perpetuating the conflict. Authorities can gain feasi- assessment of management strategies for a Mediterranean peri-urban wild bility concentrating efforts on those specific groups. Awareness and boar population. PLoS One 13 (8), e0202289. Harrington, L.A., Harrington, A.L., Moorhouse, T., Gelling, M., Bonesi, L., Macdonald, information campaigns focused on preventive measures to counter D.W., 2009. American mink control on inland rivers in southern England: an the risk posed by wild boar presence can contribute to allow the experimental test of a model strategy. Biol. Conserv. 142, 839–849, http://dx. currently non-socially accepted measures to be more acceptable. doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.012. Jansen, A., Luge, E., Guerra, B., Wittschen, P., Gruber, A.D., Loddenkemper, C., Such campaigns should be carried out to promote this change in Schneider, T., Lierz, M., Ehlert, D., Appel, B., Stark, K., Nöckler, K., 2007. attitude through knowledge and not by fear, in order to keep a Leptospirosis in urban wild boars, Berlin, Germany. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13, sustainable coexistence between humans and wildlife. 739–742. Kansky, R., Knight, A.T., 2014. Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in conflict with humans. Biol. Conserv. 179, 93–105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.biocon.2014.09.008. Acknowledgements Kotulski, Y., Koenig, A., 2008. Conflicts, crises and challenges: wild boar in the Berlin City - a social empirical and statistical survey. Nat. Croat. 17, 233–246. Liordos, V., Kontsiotis, V.J., Georgari, M., Baltzi, K., Baltzi, I., 2017. Public acceptance E. Serrano was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Cien- of management methods under different human–wildlife conflict scenarios. cia Innovación y Universidades (MICINN) through a Ramon y Sci. Total Environ. 579, 685–693, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11. Cajal agreement (RYC-2016-21120). The authors thank the Ajun- 040. Manjerovic, M.B., Green, M.L., Mateus-Pinilla, N., Novakofski, J., 2014. The tament de Sant Cugat del Vallès and the Comissió de Medi importance of localized culling in stabilizing chronic wasting disease Ambient del Consell de barri La Floresta for allowing and support- prevalence in white-tailed deer populations. Prev. Vet. Med. 113, 139–145, ing this study. Raquel Castillo-Contreras benefitted from a PhD http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.011. Massei, G., Roy, S., Bunting, R., 2011. Too many hogs? A review of methods to grant (2016FI B 00425) cofinanced by Generalitat de Catalunya mitigate impact by wild boar and feral hogs. Hum.-Wildl. Interact. 5, 79–99. (Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca, Departament d’Economia i Massei, G., Kindberg, J., Licoppe, A., Gačić, D., Šprem, N., Kamler, J., Baubet, E., Coneixement) and the European Social Fund (ESF). Carles Conejero Hohmann, U., Monaco, A., Ozoliņš, J., Cellina, S., Podgórski, T., Fonseca, C., Markov, N., Pokorny, B., Rosell, C., Náhlik, A., 2015. Wild boar populations up, was funded by the Ajuntament de Barcelona through the contract numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. 16/0243-00-CP/01. Pest Manag. Sci. 71, 492–500, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.3965. Mayer, J.J., 2013. Wild pig attacks on humans. In: Wildlife Damage Management Conferences - Proceedings., pp. 151 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm wdmconfproc/151. Appendix A. Supplementary data Mentaberre, G., Romero, B., de Juan, L., Navarro-González, N., Velarde, R., et al., 2014. Long-term assessment of wild boar harvesting and cattle removal for Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in bovine tuberculosis control in free ranging populations. PLoS One 9 (2), e88824, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088824. the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019. Milborrow, S., 2016. rpart.plot: Plot r̈partM̈odels. An Enhaced Version of p̈lot.rpart¨. 04.002. R Package Version 2.0.1. 72 C. Conejero et al. / Mammalian Biology 96 (2019) 68–72 Navarro-González, N., Casas-Díaz, E., Porrero, C.M., Mateos, A., Domínguez, L., Sekhar, N.U., 2003. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife Lavín, S., Serrano, E., 2013. Food-borne zoonotic pathogens and antimicrobial tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ. Manage. 69, 339–347, resistance of indicator bacteria in urban wild boars in Barcelona, Spain. Vet. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.002. Microbiol. 167, 686–689. Therneau, T., Atkinson, B., Ripley, B., 2015. Partitioning and Regression Trees. R Ortuño, A., Quesada, M., López-Claessens, S., Castellà, J., Sanfeliu, I., Antón, E., Package Version, 4., pp. 1–10. Segura-Porta, F., 2007. The role of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Toger, M., Benenson, I., Wang, Y., Czamanski, D., Malkinson, D., 2018. Pigs in space: eco-epidemiology of Rickettsia slovaca in Northeastern Spain. Vector Borne an agent-based model of wild boar (Sus scrofa) movement into cities. Landsc. Zoonotic Dis. 7 (1), 59–64. Urban Plan. 173, 70–80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.006. Panzacchi, M., Cocchi, R., Genovesi, P., Bertolino, S., 2007. Population control of Treves, A., Bruskotter, J., 2014. Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science 344, coypu Myocastor coypus in Italy compared to eradication in UK: a cost-benefit 476–477, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1252690. analysis. N. B. Res. Ed.) Wildl. Biol. 13 (2), 159–171. Vetter, S.G., Ruf, T., Bieber, C., Arnold, W., 2015. What is a mild winter? Regional R Development Core Team, Viena, Austria 2018. A Language and Environment for differences in within-species responses to climate change. PLoS One 10, 1–17, Statistical Computing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132178. Sáez-Royuela, C., Tellería, L., 1986. The increased population of the Wild Boar (Sus Warnes, G.R., Bolker, B., Bonebakker, L., Gentleman, R., Huber, W., Liaw, A., Lumley, scrofa L.) in Europe. Mamm. Rev. 16 (2), 97–100. T., Maechler, M., Magnusson, A., Moeller, S., Schwartz, M., Veneables, B., 2016. Sakurai, R., Jacobson, S.K., Ueda, G., 2013. Public perceptions of risk and Gplots: Various R Programming Tools for Plotting Data. R Package Version 3.0.1. government performance regarding bear management in Japan. Ursus 24, 70–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-12-00011.1.