![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.jpg)
BACKGROUND: Greater attention to zoonotic disease in recent decades has resulted in increased messaging and public awareness about potential threats that wildlife may pose to human health. However, little work has investigated how the general public receives and responds to this messaging. Consequently, little is known about the efficacy (e.g., ability to increase risk prevention behaviors) of public health education around zoonotic disease or the potential for collateral effects, including possible negative consequences (e.g., decreased societal tolerance of wildlife). In response, this study aimed to determine how messages about the zoonotic disease risk of bat rabies influenced public perceptions of bats, conservation intentions, and prevention behaviors.
METHODS: A convenience sample of visitors was recruited in four national park units from July-August, 2014. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 8 message treatment groups or a no message, control group. Each message provided information about rabies risk from park bats with variations. In the first experiment, messages varied threat temporality (recent vs. historical rabid bat) and included or excluded ecological benefits of bats information (benefits vs. no benefits). In the second experiment, messages included the benefits vs. no benefits condition and emphasized either human vs. bat behavior as contributing to rabies prevalence. Participants then answered a questionnaire on demographics, conservation intent, rabies prevention intent, and rabies risk awareness. Data were analyzed using SPSS.
RESULTS: 1001 questionnaires were completed (N=521, experiment 1; N=480, experiment 2). Mean participant age was 44.8 years for experiment 1 and 48.1 years for experiment 2, with 49.3 and 52.7% of participants being female respectively. For both experiments mentioning the ecological benefits of bats in the message increased participants’ personal efficacy regarding rabies prevention, including intent to tell a park ranger if they discovered a bat behaving strangely and intent not approach the bat. The messages stating that a rabid bat had been found in the park (i.e., acute risk, experiment 1) decreased participants’ conservation intention toward bats relative to the control group. All messages in experiment 2, which did not mention an acute risk, increased participants’ conservation intent relative to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Public health messages that include information about the benefits of a wildlife vector species alongside efficacy information may increase appropriate risk response in the public while potentially increasing conservation behaviors. Messages framed as general rather than acute risks may mitigate potential negative effects that wildlife zoonotic disease messages may have on conservation intentions.