Abstract
Effectively communicating risk is critical to reducing conflict in human-wildlife interactions. Using a survey experiment fielded in the midst of contentious public debate over flying fox management in urban and suburban areas of Australia, we find that stories with characters (i.e., narratives) are more effective than descriptive information at mobilizing support for different forms of bat management, including legal protection, relocation, and habitat restoration. We use conditional process analysis to show that narratives, particularly with accompanying images, are effective because they cause emotional reactions that influence risk perception, which in turn drives public opinion about strategies for risk mitigation. We find that prior attitudes towards bats matter in how narrative messages are received, in particular in how strongly they generate shifts in affective response, risk perception, and public opinion. Our results suggest that those with warm prior attitudes towards bats report greater support for bat dispersal when they perceive impacts from bats to be more likely, while those with cool priors report greater support for bat protection when they perceive impacts from bats to be more positive, revealing 1) potential opportunities for targeted messaging to boost public buy-in of proposals to manage risks associated with human-wildlife interactions, and 2) potential vulnerabilities to disinformation regarding risk.
Highlights
The present fallout from the global COVID-19 pandemic is a poignant reminder of how serious the consequences of human-wildlife interaction can be
We find evidence to confirm our expectation that the effects of narrative and image on support for bat management policies operate indirectly through affect and perceived risk perception
The addition of an image to the non-narrative message does not appear to influence support for bat management policies through affect and risk perception, suggesting that the combination of narrative and image is important in shifting public opinion through affective response and risk perception
Summary
The present fallout from the global COVID-19 pandemic is a poignant reminder of how serious the consequences of human-wildlife interaction can be. Degradation of natural habitat and displacement of wildlife toward more urban areas increases the frequency of human-wildlife interactions, and poses threats to wildlife health [5, 6]. These risks exacerbate human-wildlife conflict (HWC) and permeate already contentious political arenas and polarized debates among those seeking to prioritize the protection of wildlife and those.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
