Fig 2 - uploaded by John D C Linnell
Content may be subject to copyright.
A: The security fence along the Mongolian–Chinese border constitutes an absolute barrier for movements of khulan and other large herbivores in the southeast Gobi. B: A group of khulan in the no-man's land between the Mongolian (not seen) and Chinese border fence (background). Photo: Petra Kaczensky doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002483.g002
Source publication
The ongoing refugee crisis in Europe has seen many countries rush to construct border security fencing to divert or control the flow of people. This follows a trend of border fence construction across Eurasia during the post-9/11 era. This development has gone largely unnoticed by conservation biologists during an era in which, ironically, transbou...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... 4,710-km Mongolian-Chinese border is fenced almost in its entirety. Asiatic wild ass (Equus hemionus, khulan in Mongolian) equipped with GPS collars in 2013 have demonstrated that the border fence presents an absolute barrier for khulan (Fig 2, [9]). The same has been observed for Mongolian gazelles (Procapra gutturosa) along the bor- der fence with China and Russia [10,11]. ...
Citations
... Over 21,000 km of border fences in Central Asia block the migration of large mammals [36]. Removing these fences for joint biological conservation has become a preferred option for low-impact cooperation between Asian and European countries. ...
The “Parks for Peace” concept represents transboundary protected areas with ecological, cultural, and economic significance that can transcend geopolitical and ideological differences. Despite the global proliferation of these conservation models, China lacks officially designated peace parks and comprehensive development frameworks in this domain. This research addresses this gap through rigorous methodological approaches. The study conducts fieldwork in existing parks for peace and border national parks, collecting data through field observation, open-ended interviews, and informal conversations. The case analysis method is employed to analyze spatial relationships across different border contexts comparatively. This comparative analysis explores the feasibility of transboundary national parks by examining development bottlenecks, deconstructing rigid border narratives, and assessing long-term cultural benefits. Based on empirical findings, the research proposes a context-appropriate framework for Chinese border national parks encompassing four dimensions: establishing a transfrontier national park system, implementing multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, building consensus around park cultural values, and developing transboundary recreational infrastructure.
... However besides controlling the flow of humans, this razorwire fence also heavily restricted the movement of wild animals such as deer, bears and wolves between the two countries and resulted in Croatia complaining to the European Union (EU) that the fence prevented the free movement of animals. Such border fences, erected as emergency measures, paid little attention to non-human border crossers (Linnell et al. 2016). Yet another fence, stretching about 120km along the Oder River between Germany and Poland, was erected in 2019 as a measure to prevent the spread of ASF from wild boar in Poland to Germany (Sauter-Louis et al. 2022; see also Fleischmann, Chapter 2 of this volume). ...
... Its designers perforated the fence with a regular pattern of holes carefully calibrated to let small animals through while stopping wild boar. This stands out in terms of object fluency when compared with other European border fences: a number of those installed in southeastern Europe in 2015-16 to stop transiting human migrants became effective barriers to wildlife migration instead (Linnell et al. 2016;Pokorny et al. 2017;Safner et al. 2021). This was an effect that was clearly not foreseen by the decision-makers and that has been actively denied despite the mounting evidence in, for example, the Hungarian context (Emric 2016;Diltz 2017). ...
Fences and Biosecurity explores the role of fencing as a mechanism of control, exclusion, and power in the name of biosecurity. While biosecurity is broadly understood as the set of measures taken to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful organisms – thereby protecting humans, animals, and plants – this volume critically examines how fencing has become a key tool in these efforts. Through an interdisciplinary lens, the chapters reveal the ways in which fences, both physical and symbolic, shape social, political, and ecological landscapes.
This volume brings together scholars from different regions to investigate the ways in which biosecurity fencing is deployed across different contexts in Europe and North America. As fencing practices increase in scope and intensity, it becomes imperative to assess their effects – both intended and unintended – on human and non-human life. More than passive structures, fences actively participate in the governance of space, reinforcing borders, and regulating mobility. They embody biosecurity concerns, turning abstract discourses into tangible barriers that impact everyday life. Yet, fences are not merely practical tools; they also serve as powerful symbols of fear, control, and exclusion. While they may provide protection, they also create division, evoking a range of intellectual and emotional reactions and raising questions about their long-term implications.
Fences and Biosecurity highlights how fencing, as a manifestation of biosecurity anxieties, is not only about managing biological threats but also about organizing the world into hierarchies of value. By delineating spatial boundaries, fences impose distinctions between what is considered safe and what is framed as dangerous or invasive. This separation of differently valued species and biological matter is not neutral; rather, it is deeply entangled with political imaginaries, economic interests, and global trade dynamics. Fences facilitate the circulation of capital while simultaneously restricting the movement of certain species and populations, making them instruments of governance rather than mere physical barriers. While fences physically separate spaces, they also reshape cultural understandings of risk, security, and belonging. By shifting the focus from biosecurity as an abstract policy concern to fencing as a material and discursive practice, this volume reveals the ways in which security measures are enacted on the ground.
... Its designers perforated the fence with a regular pattern of holes carefully calibrated to let small animals through while stopping wild boar. This stands out in terms of object fluency when compared with other European border fences: a number of those installed in southeastern Europe in 2015-16 to stop transiting human migrants became effective barriers to wildlife migration instead (Linnell et al. 2016;Pokorny et al. 2017;Safner et al. 2021). This was an effect that was clearly not foreseen by the decision-makers and that has been actively denied despite the mounting evidence in, for example, the Hungarian context (Emric 2016;Diltz 2017). ...
Fences and Biosecurity explores the role of fencing as a mechanism of control, exclusion, and power in the name of biosecurity. While biosecurity is broadly understood as the set of measures taken to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful organisms – thereby protecting humans, animals, and plants – this volume critically examines how fencing has become a key tool in these efforts. Through an interdisciplinary lens, the chapters reveal the ways in which fences, both physical and symbolic, shape social, political, and ecological landscapes.
This volume brings together scholars from different regions to investigate the ways in which biosecurity fencing is deployed across different contexts in Europe and North America. As fencing practices increase in scope and intensity, it becomes imperative to assess their effects – both intended and unintended – on human and non-human life. More than passive structures, fences actively participate in the governance of space, reinforcing borders, and regulating mobility. They embody biosecurity concerns, turning abstract discourses into tangible barriers that impact everyday life. Yet, fences are not merely practical tools; they also serve as powerful symbols of fear, control, and exclusion. While they may provide protection, they also create division, evoking a range of intellectual and emotional reactions and raising questions about their long-term implications.
Fences and Biosecurity highlights how fencing, as a manifestation of biosecurity anxieties, is not only about managing biological threats but also about organizing the world into hierarchies of value. By delineating spatial boundaries, fences impose distinctions between what is considered safe and what is framed as dangerous or invasive. This separation of differently valued species and biological matter is not neutral; rather, it is deeply entangled with political imaginaries, economic interests, and global trade dynamics. Fences facilitate the circulation of capital while simultaneously restricting the movement of certain species and populations, making them instruments of governance rather than mere physical barriers. While fences physically separate spaces, they also reshape cultural understandings of risk, security, and belonging. By shifting the focus from biosecurity as an abstract policy concern to fencing as a material and discursive practice, this volume reveals the ways in which security measures are enacted on the ground.
Annika Pohl Harrisson is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern Denmark. Michael Eilenberg is an associate professor of anthropology at Aarhus University.
... However besides controlling the flow of humans, this razorwire fence also heavily restricted the movement of wild animals such as deer, bears and wolves between the two countries and resulted in Croatia complaining to the European Union (EU) that the fence prevented the free movement of animals. Such border fences, erected as emergency measures, paid little attention to non-human border crossers (Linnell et al. 2016). Yet another fence, stretching about 120km along the Oder River between Germany and Poland, was erected in 2019 as a measure to prevent the spread of ASF from wild boar in Poland to Germany (Sauter-Louis et al. 2022; see also Fleischmann, Chapter 2 of this volume). ...
Fences and Biosecurity explores the role of fencing as a mechanism of control, exclusion, and power in the name of biosecurity. While biosecurity is broadly understood as the set of measures taken to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful organisms – thereby protecting humans, animals, and plants – this volume critically examines how fencing has become a key tool in these efforts. Through an interdisciplinary lens, the chapters reveal the ways in which fences, both physical and symbolic, shape social, political, and ecological landscapes.
This volume brings together scholars from different regions to investigate the ways in which biosecurity fencing is deployed across different contexts in Europe and North America. As fencing practices increase in scope and intensity, it becomes imperative to assess their effects – both intended and unintended – on human and non-human life. More than passive structures, fences actively participate in the governance of space, reinforcing borders, and regulating mobility. They embody biosecurity concerns, turning abstract discourses into tangible barriers that impact everyday life. Yet, fences are not merely practical tools; they also serve as powerful symbols of fear, control, and exclusion. While they may provide protection, they also create division, evoking a range of intellectual and emotional reactions and raising questions about their long-term implications.
Fences and Biosecurity highlights how fencing, as a manifestation of biosecurity anxieties, is not only about managing biological threats but also about organizing the world into hierarchies of value. By delineating spatial boundaries, fences impose distinctions between what is considered safe and what is framed as dangerous or invasive. This separation of differently valued species and biological matter is not neutral; rather, it is deeply entangled with political imaginaries, economic interests, and global trade dynamics. Fences facilitate the circulation of capital while simultaneously restricting the movement of certain species and populations, making them instruments of governance rather than mere physical barriers. While fences physically separate spaces, they also reshape cultural understandings of risk, security, and belonging. By shifting the focus from biosecurity as an abstract policy concern to fencing as a material and discursive practice, this volume reveals the ways in which security measures are enacted on the ground.
Annika Pohl Harrisson is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern Denmark. Michael Eilenberg is an associate professor of anthropology at Aarhus University.
... When the wolf came back to France in 1992, it served as a political scapegoat to highlight the decline of sheep farming without addressing the root economic issues. A second example of wolf conservation being linked to unrelated political issues is the recent construction of thousands of kilometers of border fences due to the human migration crises and military conflicts in eastern and southern Europe, which may in the future affect the size, dynamics, and genetic diversity of the Baltic and Dinaric Balkan wolf populations [71,72]. ...
The recovery of wolves (Canis lupus) across Europe is a notable conservation success in a region with extensive human alteration of landscapes and high human population densities. We provide a comprehensive update on wolf populations in Europe, estimated at over 21,500 individuals by 2022, representing a 58% increase over the past decade. Despite the challenges of high human densities and significant land use for agriculture, industry, and urbanization, wolves have demonstrated remarkable adaptability and increasing population trends in most European countries. Improved monitoring techniques, although varying in quality and scope, have played a crucial role in tracking this recovery. Annually, wolves kill approximately 56,000 domestic animals in the EU, a risk unevenly distributed and differently handled across regions. Damage compensation costs 17 million EUR every year to European countries. Positive economic impacts from wolf presence, such as those related to reducing traffic accidents with wild ungulates or supporting wildlife tourism, remain under studied. Wolf recovery in Europe is supported by diverse policy and legal instruments such as LIFE programs, stakeholder platforms, as well as the EU Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Coexisting with newly established wolf populations in Europe entails managing impacts on human activities, including livestock depredation, competition for game, and fear of attacks on humans, amidst varying social and political views on wolf recovery. Sustainable coexistence continues to operate in evolving and complex social, economic, and political landscapes, often characterized by intense debates regarding wolf policies.
... To mitigate the viral spread and safeguard public health, thousands of kilometers of physical barriers were rapidly constructed along the border of southwestern China between 2020 and 2022 (Global Times staff reporters, 2021) and most of them were not removed after the pandemic ended. These continual fences would pose significant threats to wildlife in border areas (Linnell et al., 2016;McInturff et al., 2020). Firstly, fences would directly impede the cross-border movement of animals, negatively affecting their feeding, reproduction, and predator evasion (You et al., 2013). ...
... While there are documented human and environmental costs associated with border militarization, particularly border infrastructure (Linnell et al. 2016;U.S. GAO 2023), few studies have researched the effects of border security policies on local communities' interactions with nature or on human-landscape connections. On the US-Mexico border, as a result of border wall construction, officials from the Tohono O'odham Nation reported destruction of places, springs and plants that they consider sacred, and culturally and historically important (U.S. GAO, 2023). ...
... Research on the effects of border security policies tends to highlight how barriers affect the movement of wild species, connectivity of ecosystems, and transboundary cooperation (Linnell et al. 2016;Liu et al. 2020;Peters et al. 2018). While important, militarized borders also affect local human communities and their relationships with ecosystems. ...
Border militarization can impede people’s interactions with nature in borderlands. We surveyed one border community to understand how local use of Białowieża Forest, one of Europe’s last primary forest complexes, is affected by militarization. Out of 100 returned surveys, most respondents had a negative view of enforced border security measures (closure of the border zone, construction of a border barrier, military activities). Many felt they were not adequately consulted about these policies. Respondents felt discouraged from visiting Białowieża Forest mainly due to the presence of uniformed services and worsened conditions of forest roads caused by heavy machinery and traffic. Newcomers reported negative impacts on their health and well-being, while people born in the region (locals) had mixed reactions. Although locals were more equivocal in opposing the border barrier than newcomers, both groups perceived the environmental costs of its construction as high and reported a sense of separation from neighboring Belarus.
... Indeed, construction of border barriers has accelerated globally in recent decades with barriers now present in 74 countries (Vallet, 2022). The ecological impacts of such border barriers can be severe as barriers are often long, continuous, and built with minimal accommodations for wildlife due to security concerns (Aspi et al., 2009;Linnell et al., 2016). ...
Geopolitical boundaries can present challenges to wildlife conservation because of varying environmental regulations, and increasingly, the existence of border barriers. As of 2024, approximately 1,023 km of border walls (i.e., steel bollard walls 5.5-9.1 m tall with interstitial spaces ≤10 cm) and 169 km of vehicle barriers (i.e., variable steel structures designed to stop vehicles but not pedestrians) exist along the USA-Mexico border. Some small wildlife passages (21.5 x 27.8 cm) were installed in border walls but few other accommodations for wildlife connectivity exist. As such, ecological consequences of border barriers may be severe and documenting the ability of wildlife to traverse these barriers will be essential to conservation efforts. We placed 36 wildlife cameras across 163.5 km of the USA-Mexico border in Arizona, USA and Sonora, MX to evaluate crossing rates through border barriers for 20 terrestrial species. We observed 9,240 wildlife events, including 1,920 successful crossing events. All focal species crossed through vehicle barriers, whereas white-tailed deer, mule deer, American black bear, American badger, wild turkey, and mountain lion appeared unable to cross through interstitial spaces in border walls. Small wildlife passages improved crossing rates for several species, including American badger, collared peccary, coyote, and mountain lion. Yet, small wildlife passages were scarce with only 13 along >130 km of continuous border wall and failed to allow American black bear, deer, and wild turkey to cross. Additional research on the impacts of border barriers and potential mitigation strategies will be critical for effective transboundary conservation.
... Fences and walls limit movement and thereby reduce access to water, food, and mates for wide-ranging and migratory species, including those with fragmented habitats (Liu et al., 2020). Large carnivores and herbivores are particularly vulnerable to the deleterious impacts of fences and walls (Linnell et al., 2016). ...
In March 1996, a jaguar (Panthera onca) named Border King was seen in Arizona’s Peloncillo Mountains, followed by a sighting of a second male, Macho B, in September. The cats had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and quickly came to symbolize a conservation success story in complicated geopolitical terrain. Two decades later, the Trump Administration’s increased militarization of the borderlands prompted concerns about the deleterious impacts of border wall expansion for jaguar movement and survival. This study examines the expansion of border barriers, and potential impact on jaguar habitat. Using geospatial technologies and public data, we measure border barrier expansion between 2005 and 2021. We found that of the suitable jaguar habitat that touched the border in the study area (155 km), 86% (or 133 km) had been cut off by border barrier by 2021. We distinguish “wall” from other barriers, including vehicle barriers, using aerial imagery. Our results show although barriers built from 2006 to 2015 were triple the length of those built under Trump, the majority consisted of vehicle barriers, which animals may be able to cross. Trump era construction shifted vehicle barriers to restrictive walls limiting animal movement. We argue examining the type of barrier is crucial in understanding the potential for border “security” disruption to jaguar movement and futures in the borderlands.
... The border paradigm is divided into two types, namely Hard Border and Soft Border (Linnell et al., 2016). Hard Border is a traditional paradigm based on state security, the state as the main actor, and aims to maintain the territorial sustainability of a country. ...
It is human instinct to move from one place to another. This migration phenomenon will be followed by a movement of various aspects of life such as ideology, politics, economy, society, culture, security, demography, human resources, the environment, and various other aspects of life. Along with the times, international migration carried out by people is increasing; this is directly proportional to the advancement of technological civilization that produces innovations in the fields of information, transportation, and communication. This paper uses a qualitative approach. This research will produce descriptive data in the form of paragraphs explaining the events studied. The result of this study is that in order to influence the policy of granting visas to other countries, the country must take a persuasive approach, namely by having a high level of soft power so that it is in a bargaining position. Soft power and visa granting policies are both continuous and directly proportional. This can be proven by the top position of passport strength of a country also occupying the top position on the soft power index.
