Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilRubriquesEnvironnement, Nature, Paysage2025Searching for Data: Nature and Fl...

2025
1086

Searching for Data: Nature and Flow of Information Underlying Urban Wild Boar Management Policies. Bordeaux (France) as a Case Study

Carole Marin et Paul Bellalba
Cet article est une traduction de :
À la recherche de données : Nature et flux des informations au fondement des politiques de gestion du sanglier urbain. L’exemple bordelais

Résumé

Nature in the city harbours a wide range of biodiversity. While some species are welcomed, others have settled in uninvited. This is the case with wild boar. The challenge of managing large urban wildlife is not only ecological but also cultural, political, and ethical. This study, driven by the general uncertainty surrounding the socio-ecological issues of coexistence with urban wild boar and potential solutions, explores and discusses the nature and flow of information underlying the specie’s management policies. Our approach is based on a field survey conducted in Bordeaux Metropolis, aimed at tracking the shared information between local stakeholders. The objectives are twofold: i) to gather and analyse existing data on urban wild boar, the problems generated by their presence in the city, and the management systems; ii) to model information flows between social groups facing the challenges of coexistence with wild boar or involved in their management. The study points to a lack of data, along with a general confusion regarding key organisations responsible for monitoring and managing the issue. While the effectiveness of management policies depends on the ability to frame the problem, data is used as an instrument of power by actors engaged in social legitimacy struggles. Assuming that the integration of information is a prerequisite for freedom in urban wildlife management choices, we discuss the implementation of a collaborative reporting platform, tailored to the urban socio-ecological context.
Keywords: fauna, city, management, conflict, knowledge, social network

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

This article is the translation of: À la recherche de données : Nature et flux des informations au fondement des politiques de gestion du sanglier urbain. L’exemple bordelais

Translation
This is the English translation of Article 1086. The free version of ChatGPT (2025) was occasionally used to assist in the translation from French to English.

Funding
This research was conducted as part of Paul Bellalba’s Master’s internship in Geography, carried out in 2023 within the Passages laboratory (CNRS 5319). It was funded by the research program “Wild in the City: When Wild Boar and Forest Fauna Blur Boundaries”. This program is financed by the Nouvelle-Aquitaine Regional Council, Bordeaux Métropole, Bordeaux City, the French Biodiversity Office, and Ariane Group, with support from the Regional Federation of Hunters of Nouvelle-Aquitaine and the Departmental Federation of Hunters of Gironde. The research was supervised by Carole Marin during the finalisation of her doctoral thesis, funded by a doctoral contract with the French Ministry of Research.

Texte intégral

Introduction

1“Humans are confined, nature is reclaiming its rights”—a sentence seen in the media during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns. As successive lockdowns emptied the streets of urban activity, residents became aware of a diverse and sometimes unexpected presence of wildlife (Murray et al., 2023; Zellmer et al., 2020). Encouraged by contemporary urban planning policies (Cormier et al., 2013; Rosol et al., 2017), the development of urban biodiversity aligns with future challenges related to species conservation and sustainable urban development (Deadborn, Kark, 2010; Kowarik et al., 2020). While some species were anticipated, others have settled in uninvited. This is the case with rats, the quintessential commensal species (Hunold, Mazuchowski, 2020), small “exotic” mammals and birds (Berthier et al., 2017; Gautrelet et al., 2024), and large ungulates.

2In France, as in the rest of Europe, the development of wild boar populations in diverse habitats challenges large fauna management strategies (von Essen et al., 2023). Several factors contribute to this population growth: high reproductive rates and resilience to hunting pressure (Gamelon et al., 2011; Vetter et al., 2020), strong dispersal abilities and adaptability to various environments (Markov et al., 2022), and dietary flexibility allowing the species to thrive in abandoned agricultural areas as well as in urban environments where human food resources are available (Ballari, Barrios-García, 2014; Castillo-Contreras et al., 2021). The human-wild boar coexistence, however, presents sanitary, safety, and economic concerns (Castillo-Contreras et al., 2022; Pagany, 2020), leading to regulatory policies aimed at reducing boar populations. French legislation establishes and maintains an “agroforestry-hunting balance”, largely relying on increased hunting efforts (Cardoux, Perea, 2019). Hunting remains the leading cause of wild boar mortality in Europe (Gamelon, 2020) and is the primary public policy response to ecosystem disservices caused by the species in rural areas. However, wild boars are no longer confined to hunting areas; their remarkable adaptability to human environments has enabled their successful colonisation of major urban conurbations worldwide (Ciach et al., 2023; Marin et al., 2024a; Toger et al., 2018).

3Urban boar issues raise questions about escalating conflicts between humans and wildlife, and ultimately, about the dynamics of coexistence between human and non-human life. While contemporary discourses on urban nature emphasise biodiversity conservation, management policies rely on lethal population control methods, as seen in rural areas (Escobar-Gonzalez et al., 2024). Depending on the city or country, urban boar management may fall under veterinary authorities (Broz et al., 2021), environmental officers (Piachaud, 2013), or urban hunters (Oelke et al., 2022). In France, management follows the transposition of rural hunting models into urban areas (French Ministry of Ecology, 2009). However, implementing these hunting strategies in peri-urban environments is complex (Lacquement, Raynal, 2023). In the most central non-hunted areas of cities, wild boar population control is classified under administrative culling measures. Wild boar is designated as “species susceptible to cause damage” (ESOD) through a prefectural decree issued by the Departmental Directorate of Territories and the Sea (DDTM). Its regulation is then entrusted to sworn officers known as wolf hunters, who are voluntary hunters acting as auxiliaries to the state.

4The migration of the wild boar—both geographically and in its legal status—blurs the distinctions between the domestic and the wild, between urban and rural spaces. This shift not only alters human-animal relations but also reshapes human-to-human interactions regarding responsibility and expertise. In hunted territories, traditional hunting structures involve relationships between hunters, foresters, farmers, and protected area managers. These networks are maintained by departmental hunting federations (FDC), which oversee management measures such as hunting quotas and damage prevention efforts. They also administer compensation for agricultural damage caused by large game (FDC33, 2021a). The urban context, however, falls outside the jurisdiction of hunting federations, raising questions about the foundations of expertise used to evaluate and adapt large fauna management strategies.

5This article examines the data used by managers and decision-makers, as well as the flow of information among stakeholders involved in urban wild boar management. We propose an original methodological approach to explore three hypotheses: i) Management decisions are based on incomplete and poorly shared information; ii) Breakdowns in information flow reflect antagonisms between social groups; iii) A lack of knowledge combined with a multitude of stakeholders results in confusion regarding large urban fauna management. Our analyses are based on a field survey conducted in the Bordeaux area, in the south west of France, complemented by a systematic data collection effort and an analysis of wildlife monitoring platforms.

Theoretical framework

Data, Information, Knowledge, and Expertise: Conceptual Clarification

6The study revolves around data, information, knowledge, and expertise, requiring initial conceptual clarification. The “knowledge value chain” of Powell (2001) consists of a sequence of “cognitive tasks” (Ermine et al., 2012) carried out by knowledge actors, enabling the transformation of data into decisions and actions. This definition is based on the widely recognised DIKW (Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom) model, which represents a sequence of successive processes leading to the transformation of data into wisdom (Rowley, 2007). When applied to wildlife management, the notions of knowledge and wisdom reflect the two dimensions of decision-making defined by Dulcire (1989): the “ability to choose” and the “capacity to choose wisely”, respectively. For managers and decision-makers, the ability to choose—or “having options to choose from”—requires an understanding of the strengths and limitations of existing solutions. Assessing the relevance of solutions in a given context pertains to expertise, which is essential for making informed choices regarding management methods that align with both needs and environmental constraints. Figure 1 provides a graphical synthesis of the definitions of Ermine, Moradi, and Brunel (2012), complemented by the notions of the ability to choose and the capacity to choose wisely (Dulcire, 1989).

Figure 1: Managing Urban Wild Boar: From the Issue to the Action Potential of Knowledge Actors

Figure 1: Managing Urban Wild Boar: From the Issue to the Action Potential of Knowledge Actors

Marin, 2024.

Knowledge for Managing

7We identify four key areas of knowledge essential for designing, implementing, and adjusting measures to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts: i) understanding the problem, ii) understanding the animal, iii) understanding the socio-ecological impact of management measures, and iv) understanding the social dimensions of managing shared natural heritage.

8First, understanding the problem involves measuring and predicting human-wildlife encounters (Pop et al., 2023) and nuisances caused by wildlife in anthropized spaces (Kawata, Watanabe, 2021; Rutten et al., 2019). Data used to assess the issue come from institutional or contributory sources, with the latter helping to compensate for the limited public funding allocated to biodiversity assessments (Amelot et al., 2017). Additionally, urban wildlife management plans require knowledge of liminal wildlife characteristics. While animals’ vital needs put pressure on territories, the urban environment exerts pressure on wildlife. The presence and abundance of wild animals in urban areas depend on both urban configurations (Beninde et al., 2015) and individual animals’ ability to exploit available urban resources (Brogi et al., 2023). Animals that adapt to the risks of human proximity are more likely to survive and reproduce in cities, leading to behavioural, biological, phenotypic, and genetic differences between urban and rural populations (Castillo-Contreras et al., 2021; Ritzel, Gallo, 2020; Zsolnai et al., 2022). Furthermore, adjusting management measures requires evaluating their cost effectiveness (Escobar-Gonzalez et al., 2024), their impact on populations deemed overabundant (Gonzalez-Crespo et al., 2018), and their success in reducing human-wildlife conflicts (Curtis, 2020; Griffin et al., 2022). Finally, the social dimension of human-wildlife interactions is multifaceted. Recent studies have examined public perceptions of wild boar coexistence (Basak et al., 2022; Carpio et al., 2023) and the social acceptability of wildlife control practices (von Essen, Redmalm, 2023; Zhou et al., 2023). Management policies also raise questions about the role of decision-makers’ and experts’ perceptions in shaping management strategies (Marin et al., 2023) and the involvement of recreational hunters in regulation programs (Vajas et al., 2023).

Knowledge for Positioning

9“Conflicts over animals are often, in reality, conflicts between humans” (Marchand, 2016). Managing large wildlife operates within a complex social system, entangled in multiple and sometimes contradictory issues.

10In rural areas, the hunting-based approach to wildlife management creates tensions between farmers and hunters (Mounet, 2012), fuels internal divisions within the hunting community (von Essen, Tickle, 2020), and sparks violent conflicts over fundamentally opposing views on animal death (Dalla Bernardina, 2017). The encroachment of wild boar in urban areas expands the network of conflicting stakeholders, forcing an “imposed proximity” (Rallet, Torre, 2004) between hunters, wolf hunters, institutional representatives of the hunting community, ecologists, animal rights activists, managers of public and private spaces, and metropolitan and municipal officials. Amid growing challenges to the legitimacy of hunting and historical conflicts between ecologists and hunters (Baticle, 2015; Larrère, 2003), sustaining the hunting-based management model requires strengthening its social legitimacy. This legitimacy is closely tied to expertise—specifically, the ability of the hunting sector to position itself within the knowledge production chain. The strong positioning of hunting actors in the scientific and technical arena traces back to the 1970s. During this period, hunting opponents increasingly adopted “scientific-sounding” arguments to condemn the practice as a threat to ecological balance. In response, the “scientification” of the debate prompted the hunting community to establish itself as a knowledgeable manager of natural resources (Fabiani, 1984). Like other publicly recognised conservation organisations, hunting institutions engaged in rationalising biodiversity data, aligning with the scientific imperatives of environmental policies while distancing themselves from activist perceptions (Granjou, Mauz, 2007). Once experts in rural game species, France’s departmental hunting federations (FDCs) have now become the primary producers of data on urban game, particularly large wildlife. While expertise provides managers with actionable knowledge, the production, control, and dissemination of information also shape decision-making power dynamics (Vimal et al., 2018). Urban wild boar coexistence sparks debate among managers and municipal officials—some pro-hunting, some anti-hunting, some favouring traditional approaches, and others seeking innovative, lethal or non-lethal, management strategies. Expertise positions its holders as key players in shaping urban nature management policies, prompting questions about the political foundations underlying the transformation of data into actionable information (Lobry, Catteau, 2023).

Method

Study area

11Our study takes place in the Bordeaux metropolitan area (“Bordeaux Métropole”), a territorial authority comprising 28 municipalities. Spanning 578 km² and intersected by the Garonne River, this metropolitan area has a population of 819,604, including 259,809 residents in its central city, Bordeaux (INSEE, 2023). Alongside peri-urbanisation, “urban nature” policies—initially integrated into urban planning projects in the late 20th century and later reinforced by the Grenelle I and II laws (2009-2010)—have fostered connections between peripheral agroforestry areas and the densely built urban core (Banzo, Couderchet, 2013). The ecological niche of the urban wild boar, which is largely unaffected by the fragmentation of its functional habitats, closely aligns with the green network outlined in Bordeaux Métropole’s Local Urban Plan (Marin et al., 2024b).

  • 1 A communal hunting association (ACCA), established by the Verdeille Law in the 1960s, is a distinct (...)

12The economic and safety challenges posed by wild boar, long overlooked in urban policies, have now become a growing concern for city stakeholders. In the Metropolis’s outermost municipalities, wild boar control remains a recreational hunting activity, managed by local hunting associations or societies1. In the central city and suburban areas, however, authorities have taken over management efforts. Between July 2020 and June 2021, nearly 1,000 wild boars were culled in the metropolitan area, with more than half removed through administrative measures (Map 1). Just eight years earlier, during the 2012–2013 season, fewer than 300 wild boar were culled in the same area, only a third of them by administrative agents (DDTM33, FDC33, 2022). This rise in culling efforts reflects an overall intensification of management strategies. Yet, despite the increasing intervention of wolf hunters in response to reported damages—ranging from crop destruction and damage to green spaces to stray animals in residential areas and traffic accidents—these measures have not been enough to contain the challenges of human-wild boar coexistence.

Map 1: One year of wild boar population management in the municipalities of Bordeaux Metropolis

Map 1: One year of wild boar population management in the municipalities of Bordeaux Metropolis

Source: Marin, 2024.

13As municipal and metropolitan authorities continue to receive complaints, the current management system is showing signs of strain. Despite increasing solicitations, wolf hunters—who operate on a voluntary basis—remain few in number. In 2021, only 14 lieutenants were responsible for regulating wild boar populations across the metropolitan area, compared to 4,200 members in the peri-urban hunting associations of the Metropolis (DDTM33, FDC33, 2022). In an effort to extend the rural hunting-based management model to urban areas, the Gironde Hunting Federation (FDC33) launched an initiative in 2015 to create a new large-game management unit focused on non-hunted areas within the metropolitan region (FDC33, 2021b). This initiative was unprecedented in France. However, it faced strong opposition when it was formally introduced to municipal and metropolitan officials in 2021. The relative failure of this urban hunting project led to the establishment of technical committees overseen by metropolitan authorities. While the intermunicipal body lacks regulatory authority over urban wildlife management, it has positioned itself as an advisory body for municipalities, which remain responsible for regulating “species likely to cause damage” (ESOD), a category that now includes wild boar.

14In this reconfigured social system, knowledge on the subject is lacking, and the general uncertainty leads stakeholders to seek scientific expertise. Initially, research co-constructed with hunting managers was fundamental and focused on understanding the animal. By 2022, this research evolved into an action-research program primarily funded by local authorities. The social expectation of support from scientific experts is not only about knowledge dissemination; it also relates to the formulation of proposals “on what should be done to improve things, or for it to work better” (Hébrard, 2009). The attempt for practical solutions immediately interrogates: i) the definition of the problem to be addressed; ii) the existent solutions; iii) their alignment with the socio-ecological context of the area. This study aims to address the first of these questions.

Approach

15Our approach aims to analyse the data and information (ecological, social, or economic) underlying the development of urban wild boar management policies and their flow within the stakeholder system. It consists of four stages, as illustrated in Figure 2 and detailed below.

Figure 2: Objectifying the construction and dissemination of expertise in urban wild boar management

Figure 2: Objectifying the construction and dissemination of expertise in urban wild boar management

Source: Marin, 2024.

Field Survey

16The fieldwork was initiated through requests from stakeholders directly involved in the challenges of coexistence: an elected official and a project manager from a metropolitan municipality, and a security manager from an industrial site within the metropolitan area. These initial interviews led to additional ones, as the actors naturally referred us to other key individuals they considered to have relevant information on the topic.

17Conducted between March 9 and May 25, 2023, the approach involved reaching out to 34 stakeholders, categorised into six social groups: 1) Politicians (elected officials); 2) Project managers (scientific and technical staff from local authorities); 3) Site managers (responsible for public or private sites); 4) Hunters or wildlife managers (actors from the hunting community); 5) Farmers; and 6) Public service employees.

18Of the 34 stakeholders, 16 agreed to participate in in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The first part of the interview allowed respondents to discuss the coexistence challenges they perceived. The second part focused on data (its nature, production, and structure) and its transmission (who provides it, who receives it, and how?) The final part explored the solutions currently in place or being considered (satisfaction with current methods, desire for innovation). All interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. Additionally, insights from three more stakeholders, gathered via email or phone, further enriched the data corpus.

Analysis of Information Flow

19The first phase of the analysis involved converting the field survey progression into graphs. To visualise the information flows between the stakeholders involved with urban wild boar management, we constructed a unimodal, directed, and unweighted social network, where the links represented mentions of actors recognised as holders of information. We imposed both spatial and temporal boundaries on the network. Restricting the spatial dimension of the system to the metropolitan area allowed us to avoid connecting local actors with distant ones in the same network (Torre, 2016). Additionally, the duration of our fieldwork limited the temporal dimension of the system. As a result, our database comprises 34 nodes (the mentioned actors) and 85 directed, unweighted links (the mentions connecting the nodes).

20We used the igraph package in R and apply the Fruchterman-Reingold visualisation algorithm. The position of nodes in the graph, whether central or peripheral, is determined by the number of connections each actor possesses. We measured three global connectivity indicators: network density, which is the ratio of actual to possible links, providing insight into the overall circulation of information; average path length, which represents the average number of steps between two nodes, offering a measure of the efficiency of information flow; and transitivity, which evaluates clusters of actors who have more connections with each other than with the rest of the network. Additionally, we used two position indicators: in-degree centrality, which reflects the attractiveness of an actor, and betweenness centrality, which counts the number of intermediate positions a node occupies on the shortest path between two other nodes, revealing the potential of actors to relay and, consequently, transform the information circulating within the network.

21The qualitative analysis of the semi-structured interviews constituted the second phase of the analysis, enabling the interpretation of the graphs. Represented by the presence or absence of links between actors, the circulation of information reflects the relationships that actors maintain, or fail to maintain. The analysis examined collaboration dynamics and the reasons for its absence, considering actors’ shared or differing views on human-wildlife coexistence and management strategies (phases 1 and 3 of the semi-structured interviews).

Data Collection and Analysis

22The final step involved collecting, cataloguing, and analysing the data produced, mobilised, or accessible by the stakeholders.

23During the field survey, we requested each of the contacted actor to share the data they possess (such as nuisance reports, complaints, accidents, and records of management and prevention activities), preferably in its raw form. The collected data was analysed by systematically noting: 1) Its source (the actor and its social group); 2) Its medium; 3) Its temporality (date or time range, frequency of updates); 4) Its spatial extent (location or area covered); and 5) The nature of the information provided. We then correlated these characteristics with the key concerns expressed during the discussions.

24We also explored the reporting systems for damage and observations of wild boar. We conducted two searches on Google's search engine (French version) and examined the results from the first two pages. The first search included the sentence “report wild boar damage” (in French) which led us to the FDC, responsible for compensating agricultural damage caused by big game, as well as a system set up by the Chambers of Agriculture. We also included the “Forest Game platform,” supported in part by the National Forestry Office. The second search included the sentence “report wild boar observation” (in French). This immediately led to an initiative launched in 2022 by the prefecture of a French department, and to the National Inventory of Natural Heritage portal of the National Museum of Natural History. We also included the “Faune Aquitaine platform”, operated by the League for the Protection of Birds (LPO). For each platform, we examined the nature of the contributions (source, information provided) and the accessibility of the centralised data, and we visualised the results of the wild boar surveys in the Bordeaux Metropolitan area.

A State of Confusion

Multiplicity of Interlocutors

25The first observation is the multiplicity of actors identified as holders of information, underscoring the challenge of pinpointing key stakeholders and organisations in urban wild boar management. However, two social groups stand out due to their frequent mention: local authority project managers and hunters or wolf hunters. While municipalities are responsible for addressing the “urban issue”, the management of large game remains closely tied to hunting. Beginning with two interview opportunities with actors outside the hunting sphere, the field survey quickly led us to engage with local and, later, departmental-level hunting community representatives. In contrast, the mention of agricultural actors came later, and none were available for meetings. As a result, the survey did not allow us to explore their methods for monitoring damage or to understand their perception of the issue. The frequency of mention of different social groups reflects their importance within the system, as summarised in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Distribution of mentioned and interviewed actors across social groups

Figure 3: Distribution of mentioned and interviewed actors across social groups

Source: Bellalba, 2023.

26This initial analysis provides an overview of the actors recognised as experts within the system but does not offer insight into the flow of information. The following section aims to identify the social sub-networks within which information circulates.

Global Circulation and Disruption of Information Flow

27The graph-based representation of the social network generated by field-based information tracking allows for an assessment of its global circulation, the positioning of various actors within the territorial landscape, and the presence or absence of connections among knowledge stakeholders.

28Connectivity indicators reveal a low intensity of information circulation (network density = 0.076), coupled with a moderate efficiency of information flow (average path length = 3.06). However, the degree of actor clustering remains relatively low (transitivity = 0.31), suggesting the existence of a central core of actors with well-established connections.

29Observing the configuration of the network, combined with an analysis of in-degree centrality, lead to an identification of key knowledge actors (Figure 4a). With a high potential for action, agents from the DDTM, personnel and representatives of the FDC, a project officer from Bordeaux Métropole, and the wolf hunters occupy central positions within the graph, exhibiting significant in-degree centrality. Conversely, most municipal and metropolitan project officers are positioned at the network’s periphery, along with the majority of site managers, whose spatial scope of action remains limited to the infra-municipal scale. However, two municipal site managers and two farmers are integrated into the core of the network, reflecting their collaboration with key management stakeholders.

30Indeed, these groupings result from a combination of collaborations and non-collaborations. A qualitative analysis of interviews identifies three main categories of collaboration: i) Teamwork and hierarchical relationships within an institution (e.g. between the wolf hunters’ corps and the DDTM, or between hunting associations and the FDC); ii) Inter-institutional communication, particularly between the FDC and the DDTM; iii) Solidarity among wildlife management operators, including collaborations among wolf hunters and between them and members of territorial hunting associations. Non-collaboration, on the other hand, stems either from deficiencies in the communication framework regarding urban wildlife or from ideological antagonisms between actors with fundamentally opposing views on human-non-human relationships. The absence of expected collaborations primarily concerns prefectural institutions, such as the Departmental Directorate of Public Security (DDSP) and the DDTM, as well as various intermunicipal services. These entities do not share the same mandate, addressing or disregarding the issue independently and from different perspectives. Divergences in management methods represent the second major cause of collaboration breakdowns, leading to the division of the network into two distinct sub-networks (Figure 4b). The first comprises historical stakeholders in large game management, including hunters, wolf hunters, and DDTM agents; the second elected officials and project officers responsible for animal welfare policies.

“Driving” Actors, “Spectator” Actors, and Collective Representations

31In each sub-network, global information is relayed by actors with a high degree of betweenness—key knowledge actors who serve as driving forces with a strong capacity for information dissemination. More passive observers navigate around them, playing a lesser role in the circulation of information (Figure 4b).

32A wolf hunter and a metropolitan project officer emerge as the primary relay actors within the first sub-network. The wolf hunter, as the key operational figure in urban settings, naturally occupies a central position within solicitation and information transfer networks. In contrast, representatives of the FDC and agents of the DDTM, who are less present in the field, exhibit lower betweenness centrality. Conversely, the metropolitan project officer holds the highest degree of betweenness centrality. As the mediator among stakeholders involved in the issue of large urban wildlife, this actor integrates into the central network while maintaining connections with actors from the second sub-network. Moreover, the political influence and strong on-the-ground engagement of elected officials dedicated to animal welfare provide them with significant potential as information relays. Despite being relatively new to the issue, these actors demonstrate higher betweenness centrality than representatives of local hunting associations. Our findings thus highlight the emergence of a parallel network to traditional game management, primarily composed of police service agents and municipal project officers. However, engaging with actors from this sub-network often results in repeated redirections of the research team—moving from the municipal to the departmental level and navigating across various territorial services. Ultimately, human-boar coexistence creates a paradoxical situation, where actors most strongly opposed to lethal management find themselves compelled to seek the intervention of the administrative wildlife controller—the wolf hunter assigned to the municipality.

33The grouping of knowledge actors not only creates a disruption in the flow of information within the global network but also contributes to reinforcing certain ideas within social groups. For those within the management sphere, the solution lies in reducing animal populations through harvesting or destruction, and game management governance through hunting is seen as essential. In contrast, driving actors within the second sub-network advocate for a renewal of the model, calling for the professionalisation of management officers and the application of non-lethal methods. At the heart of this network, with its marked divergences, the metropolitan project officer invested in the issue relays all the discourses. Interview analysis further reveals a relative discursive proximity about the problem and its solutions among the most interconnected actors. The wolf hunters are the primary point of contact for those facing the nuisances caused by large urban wildlife. Our findings suggest that their pragmatic discourse, focused on the effectiveness of measures, is echoed by urban site managers who seek their assistance.

Figure 4: Network of actors involved in the knowledge of the urban wild boar phenomenon in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area a) In-degree centrality; b) Betweenness centrality and sub-networks

Figure 4: Network of actors involved in the knowledge of the urban wild boar phenomenon in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area a) In-degree centrality; b) Betweenness centrality and sub-networks

Marin, 2024.

34In a network marked by communication system failures and strong antagonisms, information struggles to circulate efficiently. The dissension does not primarily concern the recognition of nuisances but rather the management methods to be implemented. However, in order to consider solutions to a problem, it is essential to first define it. In the Bordeaux area, the lack of collaboration is further exacerbated by a broader deficiency in information, which we will explore in the following section.

Data Deficiency

35At the conclusion of the field survey, the issue of data deficiency becomes apparent. While actors confronted with urban wild boar highlight the nuisances they cause, few actually implement a systematic inventory of observations and incidents. Problems are most often expressed orally without being consistently documented. While the entire approach relies on the collection of raw data, only three municipal project officers, three municipal site managers, representatives from the FDC, and leaders of a hunting association provided us with data.

36The collected data provide different types of information and are characterised by varying temporal and spatial scopes. They relate to a specific site, a municipality, the hunting areas of the metropolitan area, or the urban game management unit. The data cover damages to infrastructure, physical encounters between humans and wild boar, or regulation practices; they are recorded on various media (photographs, spreadsheets, notes, maps, management plans). This heterogeneity reflects the diversity of concerns. Game managers report harvests at the level of the management unit; some site managers document the nuisances they face directly (e.g. rooting, holes in fences); and a few municipal authorities report disturbances affecting residents. However, incidents involving large urban wildlife are not recorded at any level by police services, nor is there any centralisation of information at the metropolitan level. The only official reports of human-wild boar interactions are hunting records at the municipal level and the more or less precise geolocation of administrative culling. These data are not shared within the city’s actor network. Partial and heterogeneous, the collected information is neither mappable nor measurable. This situation reflects the absence of a collective dynamic for documenting nuisances, coupled with the withholding of information by certain social groups.

37The contributory platforms for wildlife monitoring do not provide a comprehensive picture of the wild boar issue in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area. Only certain types of nuisances are recorded, and access to data related to agricultural damage is restricted to relevant organisations. Reports of forestry damage documented in the Forest Game platform concern very few forested areas within the Metropolitan Area. Finally, while citizen-based wild boar observation surveys cover some areas of the Metropolitan Area, their visualisation only serves to confirm the presence of the species (Map 2). The processing of this data into actionable information would require a systematic analysis of their sources and the circumstances surrounding the sightings.

Map 2: Wild boar sightings reported on the Faune Aquitaine platform of the LPO, 2023

Map 2: Wild boar sightings reported on the Faune Aquitaine platform of the LPO, 2023

Bellalba, 2024.

From Emergency Measures to Collective Reflection

Framing the Issue: A Prerequisite

"Local officials and municipal services fully support this study, hoping that it will generate concrete and diverse solutions beyond just administrative drives" (Project Manager)

38Positioned at the intersection of fundamental and action research, this study responds to a strong societal demand for innovative, effective, and socially acceptable solutions to address the challenges posed by large urban wildlife. Regardless of the species or environment, the development of management strategies is inseparable from a thorough understanding of the various issues surrounding human-wildlife coexistence (König et al., 2020; White, Ward, 2010).

39While the formulation of solutions can only be considered after an initial assessment of the issue—allowing for the definition of management objectives within a given territory—our efforts to compile comprehensive data that would allow stakeholders to define the “urban boar problem” have been met with limited success. The data is partial, heterogeneous, and dispersed across multiple entities. More broadly, our study highlights a significant lack of data concerning the four key dimensions of urban wild boar dynamics previously outlined: coexistence, the animal itself, management strategies, and social factors. This reflects a local manifestation of a broader issue. While urban nature management operates within a framework of incomplete knowledge about urban ecosystem dynamics (Lofti et al., 2017), studies conducted in other cities or on other species underscore a persistent knowledge gap. This includes limited understanding of the ecological, behavioural, and demographic characteristics of liminal wildlife (Hagemann et al., 2022; Coman et al., 2022; Mackenzie et al., 2022), the challenges of coexistence (Chastant, 2023), the ecological impact of management measures (Escobar-Gonzalez et al., 2024), and the social dimensions of wildlife management policies (Moesch et al., 2024).

40Although damage, incidents, and accidents are used to justify population control measures, the available data is insufficient to establish a comprehensive initial assessment of the nuisances. In the absence of reliable data, management responses are largely based on the judgment of a few key actors familiar with the composition and distribution of urban wild boar groups. However, conflicts between humans and wild boar, and even more so, conflicts among humans regarding their presence, give rise to contradictory and sometimes accusatory narratives about the animals’ origin, abundance, and behaviour (Marin et al., 2024a). Annual reports on the number of culls serve as the primary source of information, reflecting a broader lack of collective foresight regarding the growing use of urban ecological corridors by large wildlife species that contribute to ecosystem disservices. The need to clearly define the issue prompts us to propose improvements in data collection and centralisation through the creation of a participatory database. This database is structured around four main categories of reports: damage, observations, culling operations, and harvests (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Simplified version of the decision tree for documenting the human-urban boar interface

Figure 5: Simplified version of the decision tree for documenting the human-urban boar interface

The data available for the Bordeaux area is highlighted in light green (highly incomplete information) and blue-gray (more complete but still partial information).

Marin, Bellalba, 2023.

41The project has a dual objective. Designed as an open platform for all stakeholders involved in wild boar coexistence, it would facilitate data entry by a broad audience, helping to address the lack of systematic monitoring while promoting transparency regarding population control activities. All relevant actors would be encouraged to contribute, including residents and urban nature users, site managers and farmers, municipal project officers, representatives of hunting associations and the departmental hunting federation (FDC), wolf hunters and public officials, as well as members of accredited environmental protection organisations. Additionally, the platform would provide a framework for enhancing the completeness of recorded information, allowing raw data to be transformed into actionable insights. While data heterogeneity initially hindered a clear definition of the issue, this very diversity could be leveraged to capture the complexity of the phenomenon from multiple perspectives. The proposal for this reporting platform is of interest to local authorities. An evaluation is currently underway to assess the development and host requirements, including feasibility, costs, opportunities, and potential constraints.

New Tool, Same Challenges?

"My question is very simple: What is the exact number? Have you actually counted them? And the answer is always the same: ‘They're everywhere. You can clearly see the damage they’ve caused’" (Municipal official)

42By enabling the collection of large datasets, participatory science offers promising avenues for understanding urban nature (Morin et al., 2023), its human uses (Pinto et al., 2023), and areas of human-wildlife conflicts (Wine et al., 2015). For the project to be truly effective, two key aspects must be carefully considered: the accuracy and reliability of the recorded data, and the engagement of potential contributors in consistently supplying information to the platform.

43The value of the information supported by the platform depends entirely on the quality of the data it collects. However, actors do not perceive the presence of wild boar in the same way. Observation is not a passive recording of reality; it is shaped by cognitive and psychological factors as well as by the observer’s background. Tracks and other signs of wild boar activity, which may seem insignificant or even invisible to an untrained eye, require an attentive and informed observer to be correctly interpreted (Gagnol et al., 2018). Contributory data is inherently subject to cognitive, spatial, and temporal biases (Scott et al., 2014). Observations are directly tied to the frequency and location of human activity, which is influenced by sociodemographic factors and landscape structure (Walter et al., 2018). Without accounting for these biases, the collected data reflects where and when humans encounter wild animals rather than the species’ actual distribution (Guillera-Arroita et al., 2015). This spatial-temporal bias is even more pronounced in the documentation of management operations. Both culling and population control efforts are highly regulated and embedded in broader sociotechnical systems—frameworks that incorporate technical interventions within a complex network of socio-spatial adjustments (Amelot et al., 2017). Our findings indicate that the geolocation of these interventions reflects the distribution of urban areas where wild boar drives are feasible, local agreements, and the territorial organisation of hunting groups, rather than the true spatial patterns of wild boar. The central role played by associations in the development of biodiversity knowledge raises important questions about the nature of the indicators used, and how data collection is shaped by the local sociocultural context in which it occurs (Fortier, Alphandery, 2017).

44Thus, the collaborative platform project is not intended to “count the uncountable” (Gryz et al., 2024), but rather to document the interface between humans and wild boar. The resulting data focuses on human-perceived interactions, both direct and indirect, which are central to studies on human-animal conflicts. Additionally, incorporating pseudo-absence data and validating contributory data through field surveys will enhance the understanding of animals' spatial distribution (Capon et al., 2021; Turner et al., 2022). Operationally, platform data can optimise the spatiotemporal allocation of management efforts. Over the long term, linking the four categories of data would reduce uncertainty about human-wild boar coexistence, aiding in the refinement of management strategies. However, the participatory tool remains ineffective without active data input. Our findings not only reveal a lack of data collection and centralisation but also highlight a failure to share information within the network of stakeholders.

45Zucca (2019) identifies several obstacles to the flow of naturalist data: the desire to maintain a monopoly over the knowledge of a specific area, concerns that data sharing could harm certain species, fears of misinterpretation or misuse of data, and concerns about losing visibility within an organisation. Our findings confirm some of these issues.

46The “competition for environmental expertise” (Granjou, Mauz, 2007) reflects ideological and political conflicts, leading to information withholding by organisations. Two main social sub-networks with strong ideological differences emerge from the analysis. The well-established hunting community sub-network holds the majority of the data. In contrast, the animal rights sub-network, which is emerging in the political sphere, has very limited data, despite ongoing data collection efforts. Access to power is indeed crucial, as expertise plays a key role in “enabling individuals to justify and negotiate their own course of action in the world” (Manceron, Roué, 2009). Mastery of information allows actors to frame the issue. It also opens up opportunities to reframe the problem by mobilising different norms, ideologies, and knowledge to guide the interpretation of “what matters and how to take it into account” (Mormont, 2006). The animal rights movement, a staunch opponent of the hunting management model, thus enlists new allies from the associative, political, technical, and scientific worlds. The dynamics of the conflict alter the social and spatial dimensions of the protest action, which now influences ongoing discussions. At the same time, the traditional experts on wildlife species are working to maintain their dominance in expertise, which is crucial for preserving their legitimacy within the social system. While there is a push for data transparency about nature, this is countered by the ability to interpret the data, which depends on volunteer data collection efforts, understanding the socio-territorial context, historical territorial rights and identities, and intergenerational knowledge transmission (Alphandery, Fortier, 2013). The local environmental associations form a third group of knowledge actors. Although our survey did not lead us to them, our previous research reveals a long-standing territorial conflict between hunters and environmentalists, which has been exacerbated by the arrival of wild boar in urban areas. In this case, the breakdown of information flow reflects the difficulties in communication between the organisations. It also reflects the fear of data manipulation for the purpose of gaining control over protected areas by the hunting community, and the potential repercussions this could have on biodiversity conservation. Under these circumstances, it would not be surprising to see resistance from organisations to participate in a system that would disseminate data that could be used by their opponents, while simultaneously contributing to the loss of their monopoly on naturalist expertise.

47Finally, while the management of human-boar coexistence generates divisions, it is, in France, based on the hunting associations, which bear both the responsibility and the costs. The centralisation of data by a local authority through a collaborative platform would reduce these associations to the role of data providers. By shifting legitimacy, such a project could trigger frustrations, threatening the involvement of both institutional hunting bodies and their volunteer operators in addressing a problem for which there is no viable alternative in the current French context. The implementation of such a platform goes beyond the quest for operational efficiency: it is a political choice, which redefines the roles and collaborations between local authorities and the associative sector. The obstacles we observed in the development of this project subtly interrogate the role assigned to associative actors in shaping nature public policies.

Conclusion

48By transcending physical, symbolic, and administrative boundaries, the urban wild boar becomes a model for studying the pressure liminal wildlife places on management systems. The management challenge is not only ecological and social but also cultural, political, and ethical. Achieving sustainable coexistence with urban wildlife requires reducing the uncertainty surrounding its many dimensions. Framing the issue through data collection, dissemination, and structuring is crucial for enabling flexibility in management decisions, assessing current methods, and ultimately fostering collective reflection on future management strategies.

49Our findings highlight the undeniable lack of data regarding the issue of urban wildlife, coupled with confusion surrounding the roles and responsibilities of the management actors and organisations. In a system where actors are engaged in legitimacy battles, controlling information becomes a matter of positioning, and sharing it is akin to relinquishing control. As a result, information circulates in a fragmented manner; it is neither centralised through a bottom-up approach nor disseminated through a top-down process. If the actors engage with it, the data collection platform could help clarify management strategies in the short and medium term. Centralising information through the platform would create new information flows within the network, and collective contributions to the database could foster new collaborations, which, in turn, could reshape the social network. For researchers, it would be valuable to explore not only the participation of various stakeholders in sharing information through the platform, but also the potential social transformations it might generate.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Alphandéry P., Fortier A., 2013, "Les données sur la nature entre rationalisation et passion", Revue du MAUSS, Vol.2, 202-220.

Amelot X., Couderchet L., Noucher M., 2017, "Données institutionnelles et données contributives sur la biodiversité, quelle légitimité ?", Mappemonde, Vol.120, 1-17.

Ballari S.A., Barrios-García M.N., 2014, "A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges", Mammal Review, Vol.44, 124-134.

Banzo M., Couderchet L., 2013, "Intégration de l’agriculture aux politiques et projets territoriaux urbains. Le cas bordelais", Sud-Ouest Européen, Vol.35, 5-16.

Basak S.M., Hossain M.d.S., O’Mahony D.T., Okarma H. et al., 2022, "Public perceptions and attitudes toward urban wildlife encounters. A decade of change", Science of the Total Environment, Vol.834, 1-11.

Baticle C., 2015, "Le tiers scientifique, nouvel acteur dans les conflits entre chasseurs et environnementalistes", Négociations, Vol.24, 117-130.

Beninde J., Veith M., Hochkirch A., 2015, "Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation", Ecology Letters, Vol.18, 581-592.

Berthier A., Clergeau P., Raymond R., 2017, "De la belle exotique à la belle invasive : perceptions et appréciations de la Perruche à collier (Psittacula krameri) dans la métropole parisienne", Annales de géographie, Vol.716, 408-434.

Brogi R., Apollonio M., Grignolio S., Cossu A., Luccarini S., Brivio F., 2023, "Behavioural responses to temporal variations of human presence: Insights from an urban adapter", Journal of Zoology, Vol.321, 215-224.

Broz L., Garcia Arregui A., O’Mahony K., 2021, "Wild Boar Events and the Veterinarization of Multispecies Coexistence", Frontiers in Conservation Science, Vol.2, 1-10.

Capon M., Lysaniuk B., Godard V., Clauzel C., Simon L., 2021, "Characterizing the landscape compositions of urban wildlife encounters: the case of the stone marten (Martes foina), the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) in the Greater Paris area", Urban Ecosystems, Vol.24, 885-903.

Cardoux J.N., Perea A., 2019, Restaurer l’équilibre agro-sylvo-cynégétique pour une pleine maîtrise des populations de grand gibier et de leurs dégâts à l’échelle nationale. Mission Parlementaire Relative à La Régulation Des Populations de Grand Gibier et à La Réduction de Leurs Dégâts, 80 p.

Carpio A.J., Acevedo P., Villafuerte R., Serrano Rodríguez R., Pascual Rico R., Martínez-Jauregui M., 2024, "Knowledge, perception, and awareness of society regarding (over) abundance of wild ungulate populations", Ecology and Society, Vol.29, No.1, 24.

Castillo-Contreras R., Marín M., López-Olvera J.R., Ayats T., Aguilar X.F., Lavín S., Cerdà-Cuéllar M., 2022, "Zoonotic Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. carried by wild boars in a metropolitan area: occurrence, antimicrobial susceptibility and public health relevance", Science of the Total Environment, Vol.822, 153444.

Castillo-Contreras R., Mentaberre G., Fernandez Aguilar X., Conejero C. et al., 2021, "Wild boar in the city: Phenotypic responses to urbanisation", Science of the Total Environment, Vol.773, 1-9.

Chastant B., 2023, "Coexister avec les vers luisants : Histoires d’anecdotes", GéoRegards, Vol.16, 129-142.

Ciach M., Tetkowski P., Fedyń I., 2023, "Local-scale habitat configuration makes a niche for wildlife encroaching into an urban landscape: grubbing sites of wild boar Sus scrofa in a city matrix", Urban Ecosystems Vol.26, 629-639.

Coman I.A., Cooper-Norris C.E., Longing S., Perry G, 2022, "It Is a Wild World in the City: Urban Wildlife Conservation and Communication in the Age of COVID-19", Diversity, Vol.14, 539.

Cormier L., Grésillon E., Glatron S., Blanc N., 2013, "Perceptions and Implementations of Urban Green Infrastructures in France: Three Cases of Studies (Paris, Marseille, Strasbourg)", Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Vol.4, No.1, 364-373.

Curtis P.D., 2020, "After Decades of Suburban Deer Research and Management in the Eastern United States: Where Do We Go from Here?", Human–Wildlife Interactions, Vol.14, No.1, 111-128.

Dalla Bernardina S., 2017, "Mort (et resurrection ?) du chasseur", In : Goreaud-Ponceaud A., Lemoigne N. (dir.), Chasse, chasseurs et normes, Pessac, MSHA.

Deadborn D.C., Kark S., 2010, "Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity", Conservation Biology, Vol.24, No.2, 432-440.

Dulcire M., 1989, "Le pouvoir choisir et le savoir choisir : l’enjeu de la recherche-développement au sud du Nicaragua", Les Cahiers de la Recherche Développement, Vol.24, 77-88.

Ermine J.L., Moradi M., Brunel S., 2012, "Une chaîne de valeur de la connaissance", Management international, Vol.16, 29-40.

Escobar-González M., López-Martín J.M., Mentaberre G., Valldeperes M., Estruch J. et al., 2024, "Evaluating hunting and capture methods for urban wild boar population management", Science of the Total Environment, Vol.940, 1-13.

Fabiani J.L., 1984, "L'opposition à la chasse et l'affrontement des représentations de la nature"», Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, Vol.54, 81-84.

FDC33 - Fédération départementale des chasseurs de la Gironde, 2021, Schéma Départemental de Gestion Cynégétique 2021-2027, 104 p.

FDC33 - Fédération départementale des chasseurs de la Gironde, 2021b, Plan de gestion Faune sauvage de la Métropole de Bordeaux 2021-2031, 172 p.

Fortier A., Alphandéry P., 2017, "La maîtrise des données, un enjeu majeur pour les associations naturalistes à l’heure de la gouvernance de la biodiversité", Revue française d’administration publique, Vol.163, 587-598.

Gagnol L., Mounet C., Arpin I., 2018, "De la piste animale aux lignes de désir urbaines. Une approche géoichnologique de la trace", L’Information géographique, Vol.82, No.2, 1138.

Gamelon M., 2020, "Hunting, Predation and Senescence in Boars", In: Rattan S.I.S. (dir.), Encyclopedia of Biomedical Gerontology, Cambridge, Elsevier Academic Press.

Gamelon M., Besnard A., Gaillard J.M., Servanty S., Baubet E. et al., 2011, "High hunting pressure selects for earlier birth date: wild boar as a case study", Evolution, Vol.65, No.11, 3100-3112.

Gautrelet M., Gerard J.F., Helder R. et al., 2024, "First look on the home range, movement, and habitat selection of the invasive Northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) in France through two contrasted populations", European Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol.70, No.7.

González-Crespo C., Serrano E., Cahill S., Castillo-Contreras R. et al., 2018, "Stochastic assessment of management strategies for a Mediterranean peri-urban wild boar population", PLoS ONE, Vol.13, No.8, e0202289.

Granjou C., Mauz I., 2007, "Un impératif scientifique pour l’action publique ? Analyse d’une compétition pour l’expertise environnementale", Socio-logos, No.2, [en ligne]. URL : https://journals.openedition.org/socio-logos/893

Griffin L.L., Haigh A., Conteddu K., Andaloc M., McDonnell P., Ciuti S., 2022, "Reducing risky interactions: Identifying barriers to the successful management of human–wildlife conflict in an urban parkland", People and Nature, Vol.4, No.4, 918-930.

Gryz J., Jasińska K.D., Brach M., Jackowiak M., Krauze-Gryz D, 2024, "How to Count the Uncountable? An Attempt at Wild Boar Sus scrofa, Linnaeus, 1758 Monitoring in an Urbanized Area", Forests, Vol.15, No.9, 1497.

Guillera-Arroita G., Lahoz-Monfort J.J., Elith J., Gordon A., Kujala H. et al., 2015, "Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications", Global Ecology and Biogeography, Vol.24, 276-292.

Hagemann J., Conejero C., Stillfried M., Mentaberre G. et al., 2022, "Genetic population structure defines wild boar as an urban exploiter species in Barcelona, Spain", Science of the Total Environment, Vol.833, 155126.

Hébrard P., 2009, "Connaissance critique, science normative… au risque de ne pas être légitime", Éducation et socialisation, Vol.26, 35-50.

Hunold C., Mazuchowski M., 2020, "Human–Wildlife Coexistence in Urban Wildlife Management: Insights from Nonlethal Predator Management and Rodenticide Bans", Animals, Vol.10, No.11, 11-15.

INSEE (Institut National de la statistique et des études économiques), 2023, Statistiques et études, démographie, département de la Gironde, [en ligne]. URL : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques

Kawata Y., Watanabe M., 2021, "Nuisance or benefit? A study of deer-altered park landscapes in Japan", Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol.58, 126960.

König H.J., Kiffner C., Kramer-Schadt S., Fürst C., Keuling O., Ford A.T., 2020, "Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world", Conservation Biology, Vol.34, 786-794.

Kowarik I., Fischer L.K., Kendal D., 2020, "Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Urban Development", Sustainability, Vol.12, 1-8.

Lacquement G., Raynal J.C., 2023, "Réguler le sanglier sur les friches et le foncier agricoles dans l’espace périurbain, l’impossible gouvernance cynégétique, une étude de cas en Roussillon", Norois, Vol.267, 11-29.

Larrère R., 2003, "Le conflit entre les chasseurs et les protecteurs de la nature", La Ricerca Folklorica, Vol.48, 45-51.

Lobry E., Catteau S., 2023, "Sous la carte, des jeux d’acteurs : cartographie de l’environnement et SIG critique", Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, [en ligne]. URL : https://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/40355

Lofti M., Weber C., Di Pietro F. Selmi W., 2017, "Les services écosystémiques urbains, vers une multifonctionnalité des espaces verts publics : revue de littérature", Environnement Urbain, Vol.11, 1-19.

Mackenzie H.R., Latham M.C., Anderson D.P., Hartley S., Norbury G.L., Latham A.D.M., 2022, "Detection parameters for managing invasive rats in urban environments", Scientific Reports, Vol.12, 16520.

Manceron V., Roué M., 2009, "Les animaux de la discorde", Ethnologie française, Vol.39, 5-10.

Marchand G., 2016, "Analyse de la dimension spatiale des conflits homme/faune sauvage dans la réserve de développement durable de la rivière Uatumã (Amazonas, Brésil)", Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, [en ligne]. URL : https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.27807

Marin C., Couderchet L., Lemoigne N., 2023, "Le sanglier urbain, impossible cohabitation ? Les disservices et le désarroi bordelais", GéoRegards, Vol.16, 51-69.

Marin C., Werno J., Le Campion G., Couderchet L., 2024a, "Navigating Discreetly: Spatial Ecology of Urban Wild Boars in Bordeaux City's Landscape of Fear, France", Science of the Total Environment, Vol.954, 176436.

Marin C., Couderchet L., Le Campion G., Werno J., 2024b, "Wildlife and the city - Modelling wild boar use of urban nature: empirical contribution, methodological proposal. Bordeaux (France) as an example", Urban Ecosystems, Vol.27, 1291-1312.

Markov N., Economov A., Hjeljord O., Rolandsen C.M., Bergqvist G. et al., 2022, "The wild boar Sus scrofa in northern Eurasia: a review of range expansion history, current distribution, factors affecting the northern distributional limit, and management strategies", Mammal Review, Vol.52, 519-537.

Ministère de l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement Durable et de la Mer, en charge des Technologies vertes et des Négociations sur le climat, 2009, Plan National de Maîtrise du Sanglier. Un cadre d’actions techniques pour agir au plan départemental, 25 p.

Moesch S., Jeschke J.M., Lokatis S., Peerenboom G., Kramer-Schadt S. et al., 2024, "The frequent five: Insights from interviews with urban wildlife professionals in Germany", People and Nature, Vol.6, 2091-2108.

Morin E., Razafimbelo N.T., Yengué J.L., Guinard Y., Grandjean F., Bech, N., 2024, "Are human-induced changes good or bad to dynamic landscape connectivity?", Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.352, 120009.

Mormont M., 2006, "Conflit et territorialisation", Géographie, économie, Société, Vol.8, 299-318.

Mounet C., 2012, "Conflits et reconfigurations socio-spatiales autour du sanglier. Des postures générales aux arrangements locaux", Économie Rurale, Vol.327-328, 79-95.

Murray M., Byers K., Buckley J., Lehrer E., Kay C., Fidino M., Magle S.B., German D., 2023, "Public perception of urban wildlife during a COVID-19 stay-at-home quarantine order in Chicago"», Urban Ecosystems, Vol.26, No.1, 127-140.

Oelke J., Müller F.I., Miggelbrink J., 2022, "The Urban Hunter in Times of African Swine Fever", Etnofoor, Vol.34, No.2, 67-88.

Pagany R., 2020, "Wildlife-vehicle collisions-Influencing factors, data collection and research methods", Biological conservation, Vol.251, 108758.

Piachaud M., 2013, Des Hommes et des Sangliers Comment les clôtures limitent les relations entre les agriculteurs et la faune de la région du Mandement genevois, Mémoire de Master en anthropotechnologie, Université de Neuchâtel, 460 p, [en ligne]. URL : http://www.teutates.org/

Pinto L.V., Inácio M., Pereira P., 2023, "Observation-based data-gathering method to support the assessment of the use of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces", MethodsX, Vol.11, 102326.

Pop M.I., Gradinaru S.R., Popescu V.D., Haase D., Iojă, C.I., 2023, "Emergency‐line calls as an indicator to assess human-wildlife interaction in urban areas", Ecosphere, Vol.14, No.2, e4418.

Powell T., 2001, "The Knowledge Value Chain (KVC): how to fix it when it breaks", National Online Meeting, Vol.22, 301-312, Information Today, Inc, 1999.

Rallet A., Torre A., 2004, "Proximité et localisation", Économie rurale, Vol.280, 25-41.

Ritzel K., Gallo T., 2020, "Behavior Change in Urban Mammals: A Systematic Review", Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.8, 1-11.

Rosol M., Béal V., Mössner S., 2017, "Greenest cities? The (post-) politics of new urban environmental regimes", Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol.49, No.8, 1710-1718.

Rowley J., 2007, "The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy", Journal of Information Science, Vol.33, No.2, 163-180.

Rutten A., Casaer J., Onkelinx T., De Smet L., Witters N., Huysentruyt F., Leirs, H., 2019, "Using an online survey to assess the spatial distribution of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) crop damage and factors influencing this distribution and severity in Limburg province, Belgium", Belgian journal of zoology, Vol.149, No.1, 1-13.

Scott D.M., Berg M.J., Tolhurst B.A., Chauvenet A.L.M., Smith G.C. et al., 2014, "Changes in the distribution of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in urban areas in Great Britain: findings and limitations of a media-driven nationwide survey", PLoS One, Vol.9, e99059.

Toger M., Benenson I., Wang Y., Czamanski D., Malkinson D., 2018, "Pigs in space: An agent-based model of wild boar (Sus scrofa) movement into cities", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.173, 70-80.

Torre A., 2016, "La figure du réseau : dimensions spatiales et organisationnelles", Géographie, économie, société, Vol.18, 455-469.

Turner J., Freeman R., Carbone C., 2022, "Using citizen science to understand and map habitat suitability for a synurbic mammal in an urban landscape: The hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus", Mammal Review, Vol.52, No.2, 291-303.

Vajas P., Von Essen E., Tickle L., Gamelon M., 2023, "Meeting the challenges of wild boar hunting in a modern society: The case of France", Ambio, Vol.52, 1359-1372.

Vetter S., Puskas Z., Bieber C., Ruf T., 2020, "How climate change and wildlife management affect population structure in wild boars", Scientific Reports, Vol.10, No.1, 7298.

Vimal R., Gatiso T., Mathevet R., 2018, "Monitoring in Tropical National Parks: The Power of Knowledge", Conservation and Society, Vol.16, 76-90.

Von Essen E., O’Mahony K., Szczygielska M., Gieser T., Vate V. et al., 2023, "The many boar identities: understanding difference and change in the geographies of European wild boar management", Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1-23.

Von Essen E., Redmalm D., 2023, "Social licence to cull: Examining scepticism toward lethal wildlife removal in cities", People and Nature, Vol.5, 1353-1363.

Von Essen E., Tickle L., 2020, "Leisure or Labour: An Identity Crisis for Modern Hunting?", Sociologia Ruralis, Vol.60, No.1, 174-197.

Walter T., Zink R., Laaha G., Zaller J.G., Heigl F., 2018, "Fox sightings in a city are related to certain land use classes and sociodemographics: results from a citizen science project", BMC Ecology, Vol.18, 50.

White P.C., Ward A.I., 2010, "Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts", Wildlife Research, Vol.37, No.8, 623-629.

Wine S., Gagne S.A., Meentemeyer R.K., 2015, "Understanding human-coyote encounters in urban ecosystems using citizen science data: what do socioeconomics tell us?", Environmental Management, Vol.55, 159-170.

Zellmer A., Wood E., Surasinghe T., Putman B., Pauly G., Magle S., Lewis J., Kay C., Fidino M., 2020, "What can we learn from wildlife sightings during the COVID-19 global shutdown?", Ecosphere, Vol.11, No.8, 03215.

Zhou X.H., Zhang W., Tang D.Y., Miao Z., Wang Q., MacMillan D.C., 2023, "A quantitative analysis of public preferences for the wild boar management in urban and rural China", Global Ecology and Conservation, Vol.41, e02353.

Zsolnai A., Csókás A., Szabó L., Csányi S. et al., 2022, "Genetic adaptation to urban living: molecular DNA analyses of wild boar populations in Budapest and surrounding area", Mammalian Biology, Vol.102, 221-234.

Zucca M., 2019, "La mise en commun des données naturalistes : des pratiques complexes", Revue française d’administration publique, Vol.1, 195-206.

Haut de page

Notes

1 A communal hunting association (ACCA), established by the Verdeille Law in the 1960s, is a distinctive feature of the French system. It organizes hunting within a communal or intercommunal territory. In contrast to the ACCA, a hunting society is a private association formed by hunters to practice hunting on land owned by its members or leased by the association. It does not necessarily involve the entire commune and operates according to its own internal rules.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1: Managing Urban Wild Boar: From the Issue to the Action Potential of Knowledge Actors
Crédits Marin, 2024.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41839/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 216k
Titre Map 1: One year of wild boar population management in the municipalities of Bordeaux Metropolis
Crédits Source: Marin, 2024.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41839/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 260k
Titre Figure 2: Objectifying the construction and dissemination of expertise in urban wild boar management
Crédits Source: Marin, 2024.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41839/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 168k
Titre Figure 3: Distribution of mentioned and interviewed actors across social groups
Crédits Source: Bellalba, 2023.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41839/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 108k
Titre Figure 4: Network of actors involved in the knowledge of the urban wild boar phenomenon in the Bordeaux Metropolitan Area a) In-degree centrality; b) Betweenness centrality and sub-networks
Crédits Marin, 2024.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41839/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 392k
Titre Map 2: Wild boar sightings reported on the Faune Aquitaine platform of the LPO, 2023
Crédits Bellalba, 2024.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41839/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 360k
Titre Figure 5: Simplified version of the decision tree for documenting the human-urban boar interface
Légende The data available for the Bordeaux area is highlighted in light green (highly incomplete information) and blue-gray (more complete but still partial information).
Crédits Marin, Bellalba, 2023.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/docannexe/image/41839/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 172k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Carole Marin et Paul Bellalba, « Searching for Data: Nature and Flow of Information Underlying Urban Wild Boar Management Policies. Bordeaux (France) as a Case Study », Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography [En ligne], Environnement, Nature, Paysage, document 1086, mis en ligne le 22 avril 2025, consulté le 12 mai 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/41839 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/13s8e

Haut de page

Auteurs

Carole Marin

UMR Passages (CNRS 5319), post-doctorante, France, carole.marin@cnrs.fr

Paul Bellalba

UMR Passages (CNRS 5319), étudiant de master, France, paul.bellalba@gmail.com

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search