Hunters’ Acceptance of Measures against African Swine Fever in Wild Boar in Estonia

A Comparison of Perceptions of Estonian and Latvian Hunters With Regard to the Control of African Swine Fever

“…The participatory methods used by Urner et al (24,25) were adapted from Calba et al (13) and Schulz et al (11). The FGDs were divided into two tasks with regard to control measures and two tasks concerning passive surveillance.…”

“…To calculate the trust T SHi for a mentioned stakeholder (a) SH i , the number of stakeholders mentioned in all groups SH, the number of groups which mentioned stakeholder (a) N SHi , the number of stakeholders in the group in which stakeholder (a) was mentioned C SH j and the glass beans allocated to stakeholder (a) in each group GB ij were taken into account. Details are described in Urner et al (24,25).…”

“…To employ the advantages of PE by investigating perceptions of hunters and thus learning more about their motivations or reasons for hindrance to support ASF control in wild boar, two PE studies were conducted in Estonia and Latvia. In both studies, the same methods of FGD and visualization methods were used and regional opinions on the acceptance of ASF control measures and passive surveillance were collected and analyzed (24,25). In the present study, the results of these two studies were compared, thus assessing similarities and differences.…”

The Emotional Dimensions of Animal Disease Management: A Political Ecology Perspective for a Time of Heightened Biosecurity

“…While the emotional dimensions of biosecurity regimes are not frequently interrogated (for important exceptions see Convery et al, 2005;Crimes and Enticott, 2019), multiple studies argue that participation in disease management agendas and fears over the ability to manage and adapt to associated regulations induces stress for those enrolled in what Barker (2010) calls biosecurity citizenship-governance projects that compel individuals and communities to enact disease control measures (Delgado et al, 2012;Johansson et al, 2020). Interventions and regulations often divide "good" rural participants from those "not doing enough" (Nerlich and Wright, 2006, p. 452), while new practices and routines can fracture rural identities and livelihoods and challenge local understanding of humanenvironment relations (Enticott, 2014;Shortall et al, 2016;Kowalewska, 2019;Urner et al, 2020). In turn, emotional responses from rural communities can challenge the effectiveness of the interventions themselves.…”

“…Hunters have resisted perceptions of hunting as a form of clinical slaughter and instead emphasized the care, compassion, and ethics that hunting requires (Giacomelli et al, 2018;von Essen, 2019)-emotional qualities that hunters feel set them apart from butchers in the abattoir (Marvin, 2006;von Essen, 2018). The increasing threat of ASF has also made requisite new practices for hunters such as rigorous inventories of boar sightings and interactions, burdensome tasks that add to the challenges of traditional hunting practices (Urner et al, 2020). Research on hunting cultures in the Netherlands and Sweden notes that the additional administrivia has spurred some hunters to feel resentment at being the "garbage collectors of society" (Dahles, 1993, p. 178), unappreciated andoverworked (von Essen andTickle, 2020).…”