Title
Risk Communication Associated with Bat-Related Service Calls: Exploratory Interviews. Center for Conservation Social Sciences Publication Series 21-5
Author(s)
Siemer, William F.; Lauber, T. Bruce; Kretser, Heidi E.; Schuler, Krysten L.
Published
2021
Abstract
When residential and commercial property owners need assistance removing and excluding bats, they often call a wildlife control operator (WCO). Bat-related service calls present WCOs with opportunities to communicate about threats bats pose to humans and conservation threats humans pose to bats. In 2020 and 2021, we completed personal interviews with 16 WCOs who served residential and commercial clients in upstate New York, focusing especially on counties with confirmed cases of white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats. The purpose of this exploratory, qualitative study was to: (1) document the range of WCO’s formal and informal risk communication efforts, and (2) improve understanding of WCO client’s bat-related concerns, beliefs, and attitudes when they discover bats in their home or other structures.
The WCOs we interviewed had a wide range of experience responding to bat-related service calls. Five interviewees (31%) noted that they had done little work with bats in recent years (attributing the decline to reduction of bat populations associated with WNS). We interviewed two WCOs who dealt exclusively with bat-related service calls and did a large volume of work with residential and commercial clients who needed bat exclusion and bat-proofing services. We asked WCOs about the concerns and beliefs their clients expressed during bat-related service calls. Across interviewees, a few consistent themes emerged. Most interviewees said that fear of being exposed to or contracting rabies was the most common specific concern that clients expressed on bat-related service calls. Along with a fear of contracting rabies, interviewees said that their typical client had a generalized fear of bats and high anxiety about any interactions with bats inside a house. Aside from rabies, there was concern about health risks associated with bat droppings. Although the majority of clients did not want bats to be harmed, WCOs told us that client questions about risks to bat populations or conservation of bats were uncommon. WCOs also noted that their clients were sometimes frustrated to learn that WCOs cannot remove bat colonies at certain times of the year. In summary, interviews suggest that dealing with client fears, anxieties, and frustrations is an integral part of batrelated service calls.
Interview comments suggested that WCOs consistently communicated two related messages about bats and rabies: (1) very few bats have rabies, (2) but if people or pets were exposed to a bat, the bat should be captured, euthanized, and tested for rabies (WCOs also communicated that in cases where people or pets were exposed to a bat that cannot be tested for rabies, the humans/pets exposed to the bat should seek medical attention for possible exposure to rabies). Communication about rabies testing followed a script of questions and protocol from the NYS Department of Health, which WCOs are required to follow.
Interview comments suggest that WCOs delivered two different kinds of messages about human health risks associated with bat guano: some clients were told that bat droppings posed little risk to people and could be left undisturbed, other clients were told that bat droppings posed a significant risk to humans and should be removed. Messaging depended in part on context (i.e., location and amount of guano) and in part on types of services offered by the wildlife control business responding to the call.
At the outset of our study, we had hypothesized that some of the conversations transpiring between WCOs and property owners include exchange of information about threats bats pose to people. Interview data supported that hypothesis: WCOs were serving as risk communicators on topics related to rabies. Interviews suggest that WCOs routinely communicated about rabies because: (1) it is central to clients’ greatest concern (i.e., that the bats in their house are rabid and threaten their family members or pets), (2) clients specifically asked them questions about rabies, and (3) they were required to follow NYSDOH protocols for exposure to rabies vector species. Our interviews suggest that WCOS are acting as more than just informal risk communicators; the need to communicate with their clients about NYS laws designed to protect public health and conserve bat maternity roosts obligates WCOs to take on a formal risk communication role on the topic of rabies.
Whether WCOs recognize it or not, they do serve as formal and informal risk communicators. WCOs are in a position to dampen or elevate their clients’ rabies-related risk perceptions. Given that the main concern of clients and the main risk communication by WCOs focuses on rabies, WCOs may be receptive to materials or training opportunities that would help them to educate the public about rabies and rabies prevention. Providing information and/or training experiences for WCOs could help ensure consistent messaging about bats and rabies.
Although WCOs may not characterize themselves as risk communicators, some think of themselves as environmental educators: they provide information about basic aspects of wildlife behavior and natural history. WCOs send the message that they use nonlethal bat exclusion techniques because bats are valuable for insect control and bats are “good” for the environment. Our findings suggest that WCOs may be receptive to information or training opportunities that would help them to promote accurate perceptions of bat behavior and increase awareness of bat-related benefits to people.
We had also hypothesized that some of the conversations transpiring between WCOs and property owners include exchange of information about threats people pose to bats. We found some support for that hypothesis. WCOs often communicated with their clients about the welfare of individual bats that the WCO was removing or excluding. Several WCOs noted that their typical client did not want any bats killed during the removal/exclusion process. WCOs provided information and experiences that made their clients feel less threatened by bats. Once a WCO has reduced a client’s fear of bats, clients who already feel empathy for the welfare of individual bats may be receptive to messages about threats to bat populations and the need for bat conservation.
To summarize, this study was motivated by our interest in determining whether WCOs do or could serve as communicators of balanced health and conservation messages about bats. While WCOs communicate with homeowners about bats, their messages are largely shaped by client interests and concerns. To that end, WCOs often communicate information about the health risks posed by bats to people, and that information often alleviates client concerns about bats. Given that so few clients express concerns about conservation of bat populations during a bat service call, opportunities to and incentives for WCOs to communicate with clients about conservation of bat populations appear to be very limited. It seems unlikely that WCOs could be persuaded to devote additional time during service calls to discuss bat conservation. Nevertheless, messages from WCOs may ultimately benefit bat conservation, by alleviating concerns that influence the way people perceive and respond to bats.
Access Full Text
![]()
Back
DMX4251500000