Global response of conservationists across mass media likely constrained bat persecution due to COVID-19.
Bats
Communication
Conservation
Mass media
Risk perception
SARS-CoV-2
Journal
Biological conservation
ISSN: 0006-3207
Titre abrégé: Biol Conserv
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7502018
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
10
01
2022
revised:
01
05
2022
accepted:
09
05
2022
pubmed:
24
5
2022
medline:
24
5
2022
entrez:
23
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Most people lack direct experience with wildlife and form their risk perception primarily on information provided by the media. The way the media frames news may substantially shape public risk perception, promoting or discouraging public tolerance towards wildlife. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, bats were suggested as the most plausible reservoir of the virus, and this became a recurrent topic in media reports, potentially strengthening a negative view of this ecologically important group. We investigated how media framed bats and bat-associated diseases before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by assessing the content of 2651 online reports published across 26 countries, to understand how and how quickly worldwide media may have affected the perception of bats. We show that the overabundance of poorly contextualized reports on bat-associated diseases likely increased the persecution towards bats immediately after the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the subsequent interventions of different conservation communication initiatives allowed pro-conservation messages to resonate across the global media, likely stemming an increase in bat persecution. Our results highlight the modus operandi of the global media regarding topical biodiversity issues, which has broad implications for species conservation. Knowing how the media acts is pivotal for anticipating the propagation of (mis)information and negative feelings towards wildlife. Working together with journalists by engaging in dialogue and exchanging experiences should be central in future conservation management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35603331
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109591
pii: S0006-3207(22)00144-6
pmc: PMC9110911
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
109591Informations de copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273
pubmed: 32015507
Lancet. 2020 Feb 22;395(10224):565-574
pubmed: 32007145
Sci Data. 2022 Mar 28;9(1):109
pubmed: 35347145
Mamm Rev. 2022 Jan;52(1):16-25
pubmed: 34548738
ILAR J. 2010;51(3):255-61
pubmed: 21131726
Biom J. 2008 Jun;50(3):346-63
pubmed: 18481363
Behav Res Ther. 1998 Jul-Aug;36(7-8):735-50
pubmed: 9682528
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
Behav Res Ther. 1991;29(1):91-4
pubmed: 2012593
Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35
pubmed: 19185386
Curr Biol. 2020 Jun 8;30(11):2196-2203.e3
pubmed: 32416074
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):265-269
pubmed: 32015508
Ecohealth. 2018 Sep;15(3):682-687
pubmed: 30088184
J Wildl Dis. 2015 Jan;51(1):1-8
pubmed: 25375941
Virus Res. 2005 Jul;111(1):13-27
pubmed: 15896399
Biol Conserv. 2020 Aug;248:108650
pubmed: 32542058
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
Science. 2011 Apr 1;332(6025):41-2
pubmed: 21454775
Behav Res Ther. 1994 Jan;32(1):57-63
pubmed: 8135723
Risk Anal. 2005 Dec;25(6):1433-42
pubmed: 16506973
Br J Psychol. 2020 May;111(2):297-321
pubmed: 31183857
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Mar 20;761:144432
pubmed: 33360124
Biol Conserv. 2021 Feb;254:108952
pubmed: 33518772
Sci China Life Sci. 2020 Mar;63(3):457-460
pubmed: 32009228
Br J Psychol. 1994 Nov;85 ( Pt 4):541-54
pubmed: 7812671
Biol Conserv. 2020 Sep;249:108728
pubmed: 32863391