Abstract
Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) pose a significant threat, causing substantial ecological and economic damage to natural ecosystems, agriculture, and forestry through destructive behaviors of wallowing and rooting. Addressing this widespread issue urgently requires effective and sustained management strategies, especially involving private landowners, who are a critical stakeholder group in the West Gulf Coastal Plain (WGCP). This study aims to identify landowner typologies in wild pig management and to examine factors influencing their intentions to engage in such efforts in Arkansas, Louisiana, and East Texas. We employed a mixed method of cluster analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Cluster analysis revealed three distinct landowner groups based on their familiarity with and experiences of wild pig damage and management efforts: Unaware Bystanders, Frontline Responders, and Cautious Observers. SEM was employed to assess the belief structures influencing behavioral intentions across the entire sample and within each identified cluster. Results indicated that beliefs and attitudes were the most influential predictors of intended behavior, which varied across the landowner clusters. The findings highlight the heterogeneity in landowner responses and offer practical implications for developing targeted outreach strategies, policy interventions, and collaborative management approaches aligned with the needs and motivations of different landowner groups.
Data availability
The datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent. However, de-identified data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to applicable IRB and data-use restrictions.
References
Keiter, D. A., Mayer, J. J. & Beasley, J. C. What is in a common name? A call for consistent terminology for nonnative Sus scrofa. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 40(2), 384–387 (2016). (2016).
USDA, A. P. H. I. S. Feral swine: managing an invasive species. (2020). https://www.aphis.usda.gov/operational-wildlife-activities/feral-swine Accessed: 17 May 2025.
Conover, M. R. America’s first feral hog war. Hum. Wildl. Confl. 1, 129–131 (2007).
Ballari, S. & Barrios-Garcia, M. A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mammal Rev 124–134 (2013).
Tian, N., Gan, J. & Holley, G. Assessing Feral Hog Damage in the West Gulf Region of Arkansas, Louisiana, and East Texas. Biol. Invasions. 25, 1527–1540 (2023).
Mayer, J. Wild pig damage: overview of wild pig damage. In: (eds Mayer, J. J. & Brisbin, I. L. Jr) Wild pigs: biology, damage, control techniques and management. Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina, USA, 221–246, (2009).
Bevins, S. N., Kerri, P., Mark, W. L., Thomas, G. & Thomas, J. D. Consequences associated with the recent range expansion of Nonnative feral swine. Bioscience 64 (4), 291–299 (2014).
McKee, S. C., Mayer, J. J. & Shwiff, S. A. Comprehensive economic impacts of wild pigs on producers of six crops in the Southeastern US and California. Agriculture 14 (1), 153–163 (2024).
McKee, S. C., Miller, R. S., Psiropoulos, J. L. & Shwiff, S. A. Economic impacts of wild pigs on livestock producers in 13 states. Hum-wildl interact. 17 (3), 289–309 (2023).
Seward, N. W., VerCauteren, K. C., Witmer, G. W. & Engeman, R. M. Feral swine impacts on agriculture and the environment. Sheep Goat Res. J. 19, 34–40 (2004).
West, B. C., Cooper, A. L. & Armstrong, J. B. Managing wild pigs: a technical guide. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 1, 1–55 (2009).
Adams, C. E. et al. Regional Perspectives and Opportunities for Feral Hog Management in Texas. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33 (4), 1312–1320 (2005).
Hutton, T., DeLiberto, T. J., Owen, S. & Morrison, B. Disease risks associated with increasing feral swine numbers and distribution in the United States. Mich. Bovine Tuberculosis Bibliography Database 59 (2006).
Fern, M. P., Armstrong, J. B., Barlow, R. J. & Kush, J. S. Ecological factors influencing wild pig damage to planted pine and hardwood seedlings. Hum-wildl interact. 14 (2), 228–238 (2020).
Higginbotham, B. J. Wild pig damage abatement education and applied research activities. (2013). https://overton.tamu.edu/files/2013/06/Wild-Pig-Damage-Abatement-Education-Applied-Research-Activites.pdf Accessed: 17 May 2025.
Shi, W., Zhang, Y., Zheng, B. & Ditchkoff, S. S. Economic estimate of wild pig damage to agriculture in Alabama. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Wild Pig Symposium. pp 11–13 April 2010, Pensacola, FL. (2009).
Ellis, H. E., Jaebker, L. M., Bright, A. D., Smith, M. D. & Carlisle, K. M. Alabama agricultural producers’ experiences with wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and their preferences concerning wild pig management. Hum. Dimens Wildl. 29 (5), 540–544 (2024).
Mengak, M. T. Georgia wild pig survey final report. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia. Athens, GA. (2012). (2012).
Poudyal, N. C., Caplenor, C., Maldonado, C. & Muller, L. Results from a statewide survey of Tennessee landowners regarding wild hogs and their damage. Knoxville, TN. (2016).
Anderson, A., Slootmaker, C., Harper, E., Holderieath, J. & Shwiff, S. A. Economic estimates of feral swine damage and control in 11 US States. J. Crop. Prot. 89, 89–94 (2016).
Miller, C. A. Landowner attitudes and perceived risks toward wild pigs on private lands in Illinois (Federal Aid Project Number W-112-R-22). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Prairie Research Institute. (2014).
Harper, E. E., Miller, C. A., Vaske, J. J., Mengak, M. T. & Bruno, S. Stakeholder attitudes and beliefs toward wild pigs in Georgia and Illinois. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 40 (2), 269–273 (2016).
Caplenor, C., Poudyal, N., Muller, L. & Yoest, C. Assessing landowners’ attitudes toward wild hogs and support for control options. J. Envrion Manage. 201, 45–51 (2017).
Mineau, A., Tian, N., Gan, J., Holley, G. & Pelkki, M. Private Landowners’ Perspectives on Feral Swine and Regulation—Evidence from Arkansas, Louisiana, and East Texas. Environnemental Manage. 72, 1061–1071 (2023).
Jareb, C. et al. Agricultural and ecological resources safeguarded by the prevention of wild pig population expansion. Biology 13 (9), 670–691 (2024).
Thompson, D. W. & Hansen, E. N. Factors affecting the attitudes of nonindustrial private forest landowners regarding carbon sequestration and trading. J. For. 110, 129–137 (2012).
Tian, N., Poudyal, N. C., Hodges, D. G., Young, T. M. & Hoyt, K. P. Understanding the Factors Influencing Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowner Interest in Supplying Ecosystem Services in Cumberland Plateau, Tennessee. Forests 6, 3985–4000 (2015).
Tian, N., Poudyal, N. C. & Lu, F. Understanding Landowners’ interest and willingness to participate in forest certification program in China. Land. Use Policy. 71, 271–280 (2018).
Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211 (1991).
Sánchez, M., López-Mosquera, N., Lera-López, F. & Faulin, J. An extended planned behavior model to explain the willingness to pay to reduce noise pollution in road transportation. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 144–154 (2018).
Zhong, F. et al. Quantifying the influence path of water conservation awareness on water-saving irrigation behavior based on the theory of planned behavior and structural equation modeling: a case study from Northwest China. Sustainability 11, 4967 (2019).
Ullah, S. et al. Predicting behavioral intention of rural inhabitants toward economic incentive for deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan Sustainability. 13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020617 (2021).
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J. & Li, H. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.030 (2017).
Liang, Y., Kee, K. F. & Henderson, L. K. Towards an integrated model of strategic environmental communication: advancing theories of reactance and planned behavior in a water conservation context. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 46, 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1437924 (2018).
Empidi, A. V. A. & Emang, D. Understanding public intentions to participate in protection initiatives for forested watershed areas using the theory of planned behavior: a case study of Cameron Highlands in Pahang, Malaysia. Sustainability 13, 4399. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084399 (2021).
Karppinen, H. Forest owners’ choice of reforestation method: an application of the theory of planned behavior. For. Policy Econ. 7, 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.06.001 (2005).
Castilho, L. C., De Vleeschouwer, K. M., Milner-Gulland, E. J. & Schiavetti, A. Attitudes and behaviors of rural residents toward different motivations for hunting and deforestation in protected areas of the northeastern Atlantic forest, Brazil. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 11, 194008291775350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917753507 (2018).
Primmer, E. & Karppinen, H. Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. For. Policy Econ. 12, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.007 (2010).
Karppinen, H. & Berghäll, S. Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: applying the theory of planned behavior. For. Policy Econ. 50, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.009 (2015).
Munsell, J. F., Germain, R. H., Luzadis, V. A. & Bevilacqua, E. Owner intentions, previous harvests, and future timber yield on fifty working nonindustrial private forestlands in New York State. North. J. Appl. For. 26 (2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/26.2.45 (2009).
Pouta, E. & Rekola, M. The theory of planned behavior in predicting willingness to pay for abatement of forest regeneration. Soc. Nat. Resour. 14 (2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419201300000517 (2001).
Corbett, J. B. Motivations to participate in riparian improvement programs. Sci. Communication. 23 (3), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300303 (2002).
Allred, S. & Gary, G. Riparian landowner decision-making in the context of flooding: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Environ. Syst. Decisions. 39 (4), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09735-1 (2019).
Steinmetz, H., Michael, K., Icek, A. & Peter, S. R€udiger. How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? A three-level meta-analysis. Z. f€ur Psychologie. 224 (3), 216–233 (2016).
Schermelleh-Engel, K. & Moosbrugger, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. 8, 23–74 (2003).
Tan, Y., Lian, K. & Yu, Z. Research on farmers’ satisfaction degree and its impact factors of heavy metal polluted farmland fallow. China Land. Sci 43–50 (2018).
Leitch, Z. J., Lhotka, J. M., Stainback, G. A. & Stringer, J. W. Private landowner intent to supply woody feedstock for bioenergy production. Biomass Bioenerg. 56, 127–136 (2013).
Thompson, D. W. Intentions of US forestland owners to participate in emerging carbon markets: A behavioral modeling approach (Oregon State University, 2010).
Holt, J. et al. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Family Forest Owners’ Intended Responses to Invasive Forest Insects. Soc. Nat. Resour. 34 (8), 1001–1018 (2021).
Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R. & Nudge Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (Penguin, 2009).
Kuhfuss, L., Preget, R., Thoyer, S., Hanley, N. & Coent, P. L. Désolé D. Nudges, social norms, and permanence in agri-environmental schemes. Land Econ. 92 (4), 641–655 (2016).
Graham, S. Three cooperative pathways to solving a collective weed management problem. Australasian J. Environ. Manage. 20 (2), 116–129 (2013).
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research (Addison-Wesley, 1975).
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 46 (1), 69–81 (1984).
Schultz, P. W. et al. Personalized normative feedback and the moderating role of personal norms. Environ. Behav. 48 (5), 686–710 (2016).
Bollen, K. A. Structural equation models. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Chichester, UK (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (2005).
Kline, R. B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 4th edn (Guilford Press, 2016).
Gagné, C. & Godin, G. Does the easy–difficult item measure attitude or perceived behavioural control? Br. J. Health. Psychol. 12 (Pt 4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910706X147781 (2007).
Godin, G., Valois, P., Shephard, R. J. & Desharnais, R. Test–retest reliability of the intention to perform physical activity scales. Can. J. Nurs. Res. 39 (2), 112–125 (1987).
Valois, P. A., Godin, G. & Bertrand, R. Reliability of TPB constructs in predicting physical activity intention and behavior. Can. J. Nurs. Res. 39 (2), 112–125 (1992).
Dillman, D. A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd edn, 464 (Wiley, 2014).
Surendra, G. C., Mehmoodt, S. & Schelhas, J. Segmenting Landowners Based on Their Information-Seeking Behavior: A Look at Landowner Education on the Red Oak Borer. J. For. 107, 313–319 (2009).
Tian, N., Lu, F., Joshi, O. & Poudyal, N. C. Segmenting Landowners of Shandong, China Based on Their Attitudes towards Forest Certification. Forests 9, 361–375 (2018).
Macqueen, J. B. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Berkeley, CA, USA, 21 June–18 July 1965; University of California Press 281–287Berkeley, CA, USA, (1967).
Silver, M. Scales of measurement and cluster analysis: An application concerning market segments in the baby food market. Statistician 44, 101–112 (1995).
Chiu, T., Fang, D., Chen, J., Wang, Y. & Jeris, C. A robust and scalable clustering algorithm for mixed-type attributes in a large database environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, 26–29 August 263–268 (2001).
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. Multivariate Data Analysis 6th edn, Vol. 899 (Prentice Hall, Inc., 2006).
Byrne, B. M. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming 3rd edn (Routledge, 2016).
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the respondents for their time and effort in completing the survey and for the support provided by the Arkansas Forest Resources Center, College of Forestry, Agriculture & Natural Resources, in completing this study. This study was financially supported by the Arkansas Forest Resources Center, part of the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, Nana Tian; methodology, Nana Tian; formal analysis, Nana Tian; writing—original draft preparation, Nana Tian; writing—review and editing, Jianbang Gan; project administration, Nana Tian. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tian, N., Gan, J. Understanding private landowner strategies for wild pig management using cluster analysis and structural equation modeling. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-41507-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-41507-1
