Flying-foxes in the Australian urban environment—community attitudes and opinions

Tags

Top Highlights

• a substantial minority mistakenly believed that flying-foxes pose a direct infection risk to humans,

• The influx of large numbers often precipitates community angst, typically stemming from concerns about loss of social amenity, economic loss or negative health impacts

• We conducted an on-line survey to capture community attitudes and opinions on flying-foxes

• often precipitates some community angst [9]. The reasons for this are broadly twofold: firstly, nuisance and loss of social amenity, and secondly, health concerns

• were primarily interested in comparing responses from communities where flying-fox management was and was not topical

• damage mitigation permi

• to disperse or modify a roost from the state wildlife authority

• DMP postcode respondents were also more likely to respond in the affirmative to these two questions, and more likely to be concerned that flying-foxes might affect water quality, damage property, create noise, generate smell and cause disease.

• For example, nearly 40% of respondents indicated that flying foxes had caused them personal concern. This response is not consistent with a net over-representation of ‘pro’ bat respondents.

• with the predominant source of information being the authoritative state government.

• Interestingly, while the internet was a secondary source of information, its reliability was heavily discounted

• Interestingly, DMP respondents were less likely to report flying-foxes foraging in their garden, suggesting that the presence of an urban roost may not necessarily translate to increased flying-foxes foraging in urban gardens, but rather in urban and peri-urban remnant vegetation.

• Nearly three-quarters of all respondents thought the ecological role of flying-foxes was important, including a majority of DMP postcode respondents

• Additional comments support this interpretation in that they frequently expressed anger and resentment at the perception that flying-foxes were being put before people, reflected in the legislative protections afforded flying-foxes and the complexity of the formal damage mitigation process

• esulted in faecal soiling and smell that prevented families using their yards, damaged property and negatively impacted property values