Document [original]

Citation: Straka, T.M.; Voigt, C.C.

Threat Perception, Emotions and

Social Trust of Global Bat Experts

before and during the COVID-19

Pandemic. Sustainability 2022,14,

11242. https://doi.org/10.3390/

su141811242

Academic Editor: Ilkka Leinonen

Received: 21 June 2022

Accepted: 30 August 2022

Published: 8 September 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

sustainability

Article

Threat Perception, Emotions and Social Trust of Global Bat

Experts before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Tanja M. Straka 1,2,* and Christian C. Voigt 2

1Institute of Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, 10165 Berlin, Germany

2Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Widllife Research,

Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 16, 10315 Berlin, Germany

*Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract:

Speculations about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 have catapulted bats into the spotlight of

scientific and societal attention, with unforeseen consequences for bat conservation. In two global

surveys with bat experts before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, we assessed their (i) threat

perceptions, emotions towards bats and social trust in decision makers and (ii) the predictive potential

of emotions, social trust and socio-demographic variables on threat perceptions. We also discuss

(iii) the potential influence of the pandemic on threat perception and antecedents (emotions and

social trust). We received 495 responses from 65 countries in September 2019 and 320 responses

in June 2020 from 77 countries. We identified three major threat categories (indirect, direct and

prejudice). Comparing threat perception, emotions and social trust between both surveys, we found

that indirect threats (e.g., habitat modification) were considered as crucial, yet less so during the

pandemic. During the pandemic, experts rated indirect threats lower and the perceived threat

through prejudice (e.g., myths) higher than before the pandemic. During the pandemic, bat experts

also expressed more compassion and sadness related to bats and trust in researchers and NGOs, but

less trust in laypeople than before the pandemic. Emotions were particularly important predictors

for threats through prejudice besides social trust. Socio-demographic variables (e.g., cultural and

professional background) had predictive potential predominantly for direct threats (e.g., hunting

and trade, wind turbines) and threats through prejudice. Our study highlights the role of emotions

and social trust on threat perception among bat experts who remained relatively invisible during the

pandemic despite their key role for bat conservation. More importantly, we echo previous calls to

be more attentive to ecological grief also within the scientific community; especially as discussions

around zoonotic spillover with valued study animals intensify.

Keywords: biodiversity; Chiroptera; ecological grief; viruses; cultural values; perception; stakeholders

1. Introduction

With almost 1400 species known to science, bats are a diverse mammalian taxon

that is widely distributed on our planet, except for the polar regions [

]. Over a third

of bat species are considered threatened or data deficient according to the International

Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the population trends for half of the

species are negative or unknown [

]. Clearly, bat conservation is crucial to prevent further

biodiversity loss. Major threats to bats range from habitat destruction and modification

to roost disturbance or persecution [

]. Bat conservation appears more challenging and

urgent than ever given the global COVID-19 pandemic [

], since the putative origin of the

ancestral form of SARS-CoV-2 in bats has brought bats into the focus of the scientific, media

and public discussions [

]. Consequently, bats have also become the negative focal point

with regard to future scenarios in which zoonotic viruses are transmitted to humans [

Fear and a decreased appreciation of bats in the public might pose a serious risk to bat

populations and conservation efforts worldwide. We undertook two global cross-sectional

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811242 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 2 of 17

surveys among bat experts before the pandemic (September 2019) and during the first year

of the pandemic (June 2020) on how serious they perceived prejudice as a threat to bats

and their conservation compared to other threats [

]. Global bat experts are a relatively

small, yet diverse, community. Hence, we included socio-demographic variables as well as

cognitive and affective mechanisms that might vary among bat experts and that are known

to affect people’s perceptions of threats.

Threat perception, the conscious or unconscious estimation that something or someone

is dangerous or in danger, is the ‘decisive intervening variable between action and reaction

in international crisis’ [

]. It is a mental process that is influenced by various factors such

as emotions and social trust [

], particularly when a threat is novel [

] or in response

to a crisis [

]. For example, fear is known to be a major factor when it comes to the

perceived severity of the threat of a species [

], and the importance of emotions is widely

acknowledged in relation to wildlife-related issues see review by [

]. In fact, decisions

are hardly free from emotional processes [

] and emotional processes of bat experts were

likely influenced by discussions around their valued study taxon in this pandemic. The

second explanatory factor, social trust, is ‘the process by which individuals assign to other

persons, groups, agencies, or institutions the responsibility to work on particular tasks’ [

We hypothesized that social trust would be besides emotions relevant in the context of the

COVID-19 pandemic given the role of social trust in human–wildlife conflicts [16].

We used this framework to assess, in a global survey of bat experts, (i) threat percep-

tions, emotions towards bats and social trust in decision makers and (ii) the predictive

potential of emotions, social trust and socio-demographic variables on threat perceptions.

While no one could have predicted the COVID-19 pandemic, we were in the unusual

position to have conducted a survey of bat experts in September 2019, about half a year

before the pandemic started. We cannot make a direct comparison of threat perception of

participants before and during the pandemic because we did not control for identical survey

participants. However, by using the same questionnaire in both surveys, applying the same

recruitment approach and undertaking a statistical comparison among sociodemographic

factors, we can put bat experts’ threat perception during the COVID-19 pandemic in context

much better than without this preliminary information and consequently, discuss (iii) the

potential influence of the pandemic on threat perception and antecedents (emotions and

social trust).

Expert opinions and decisions are crucial in science and practice of conservation,

particularly when there is a lack of data and due to the imminent nature of many nature

conservation decisions [

]. Expert views shape research directions [

] as well as con-

servation and management. Further, bat experts have a pivotal role in assessing threats

and communicating bat ecology. In comparison to the public [

], bat experts remained

relatively invisible during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding bat conservation and virus

transmissions. This study shows how underlying cognitive and affective mechanisms can

influence experts’ threat perceptions. Most importantly, we see this as an important step

in understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted bat conservation and

would like to draw attention to ecological grief, an understudied topic in conservation [

and the importance of how to communicate about a threatened taxon.

2. Methods

2.1. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire included four parts (Table S1) that were measured on 7-point scales:

(a) threat perception based on the IUCN assessment of ten major threats to bats [

]

(Table S1). While bat researchers generally have a positive view on bats, there is also a

particular concern about the public’s beliefs in myths and negative attitudes towards bats

with negative consequences for bat conservation [

]. ‘Hunting and trade’ were only added

to the survey in relation to the bat family Pteropodidae and wind turbines for all bats except

for Pteropodidae. We further assessed (b) three positive (joy, interest and compassion) and

three negative (anger, fear and sadness) discrete emotions in relation to bats and (c) the

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 3 of 17

extent of trust in stakeholders to do what is right for bat conservation [

] (Table S1). Lastly,

we measured (d) socio-demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, professional background,

country of origin). The surveys in September 2019 and June 2020 were similar, except that

we included in the second survey in each section: ‘

. . .

now, three months in the COVID-19

pandemic’. In our second survey (during the pandemic), we additionally asked experts in

an open question what consequences and behaviors towards bats were observed in their

countries since the start of the pandemic.

2.2. Survey Administration

In September 2019 and June 2020, we sent out self-administered online surveys

(Lamapoll, Berlin, Germany) translated into English, French and Spanish. The first survey

in September 2019 was shortly before (hereafter: ‘before pandemic’) and second survey in

June 2020 approximately three months into the COVID-19 pandemic (hereafter: ‘during

pandemic’) with the official WHO declaration of a pandemic on 11 March 2020 and first

mentions in the media about the potential role of bats in the spillover by the end of March

2020 [

]. For both surveys, we used the same recruitment approach (Figure S1). However,

since the occurrence of the pandemic and the second administration of the survey were

not expected and since the participation was anonymous, it was impossible for us to draw

conclusions whether participants took part in both surveys or only in one of them.

In both surveys, we used as a first step an internal email distribution list which was

created via registration for previous bat conferences in which >400 international bat ex-

perts from research units, non-governmental organizations and governmental bodies were

involved (hereafter: ‘bat experts’). The invitation was sent out in this first step via email on

behalf of the authors and we additionally asked the participants to forward the email to

other bat experts following a snowball sampling design [

]. In a second step, we shared

the survey in international bat groups (e.g., Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, USA) using

the email distribution list (e.g., Western Bat Working Group) or website (e.g., EUROBATS)

of our networks and social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter (e.g., African

Bat Conservation, Australasian Bat Society). We sent out a reminder 2 weeks after the

initial call (via email or as posts on the social media channels). There were no institutional

requirements for ethical clearance. However, the survey was undertaken in accordance

with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union. A consent

form was provided to participants ensuring their anonymity, information about the general

aim of the study, data that would be collected, contact and that there would be no disad-

vantages for participants if they resigned from the study at any stage of their participation.

Participants had to agree to this consent form before they could start the survey.

2.3. Data Analyses

In a first step, we grouped respondents according to their provided information on

‘country of origin’ into cultural value clusters (hereafter cultural clusters) based on cate-

gories derived from the World Value Survey (WVS, www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed

on 16 March 2021)) (Figure 1, Table S6). The WVS is a global research project in which

social scientists have been assessing people’s values and beliefs in almost 100 countries

since 1981. Based on this information, countries are grouped into cultural clusters based on

common values and beliefs rather than geographic proximity. We decided for this approach

to demonstrate the geographic range of our respondents since this clustering is based on

guiding principles (e.g., values) rather than geographic nearness which we considered to

be more relevant in this survey.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 4 of 17

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

Figure 1. Countries of respondents clustered in eight value clusters according to the Inglehart-

Welzel World Cultural Map (2020).This map demonstrates how participating countries are grouped

based on shared values and beliefs assessed by the World Value Survey (WVS) rather than geo-

graphic proximity. Responses were also received from Bhutan, Cameroun, Chile, Costa Rica, El Sal-

vador, Ireland, Kenya, Laos, Latvia, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Panama

and Paraguay. These countries are not shown in the map since they were not part of the WVS in

2020. Detailed numbers of participants per cultural cluster are found in Table S6.

In a second step, we assessed statistically significant differences in participants’ so-

cio-demographics before and during the pandemic using a chi-squared test. In a third

step, we aimed to reduce the number of factors for the ten items measuring threat percep-

tion and seven items measuring trust in different stakeholders during the pandemic. To

do so, we undertook exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) with ‘varimax’ rotation using the

package ‘psych’ [24]. We decided that three factors are useful to summarize the variation

for threat perception and also for trust. We used item loadings > 0.50 and <0.50 on each

factor (Tables S4 and S5). The first factor on threat perceptions explained 38% of the data;

hereafter ‘direct’ since it included direct anthropogenic (hunting and trade, overexploita-

tion and wind turbines) and natural (predators) life threats for bats. The second factor

explained 34% of the data; hereafter ‘indirect’ since threats (habitat destruction, habitat

modification and roost disturbance) are not necessarily directly related to the killing of

bats, but rather to habitat deterioration and disturbance. The third factor explained 28%

of the data and included persecution (e.g., through negative beliefs about bats) and myths

(leading to negative behavior towards bats), hereafter ‘prejudice’ to capture the link be-

tween negative beliefs and behavior towards bats. Disease did not load clearly on any

factor (Table S4). As for trust, the first factor included local and national authorities (38%

of the data explained; hereafter authorities), the second environmental and animal welfare

Figure 1.

Countries of respondents clustered in eight value clusters according to the Inglehart-Welzel

World Cultural Map (2020). This map demonstrates how participating countries are grouped based

on shared values and beliefs assessed by the World Value Survey (WVS) rather than geographic

proximity. Responses were also received from Bhutan, Cameroun, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador,

Ireland, Kenya, Laos, Latvia, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Panama and

Paraguay. These countries are not shown in the map since they were not part of the WVS in 2020.

Detailed numbers of participants per cultural cluster are found in Table S6.

In a second step, we assessed statistically significant differences in participants’ socio-

demographics before and during the pandemic using a chi-squared test. In a third step,

we aimed to reduce the number of factors for the ten items measuring threat perception

and seven items measuring trust in different stakeholders during the pandemic. To do

so, we undertook exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) with ‘varimax’ rotation using the

package ‘psych’ [

]. We decided that three factors are useful to summarize the variation

for threat perception and also for trust. We used item loadings > 0.50 and <0.50 on each

factor (

Tables S4 and S5

). The first factor on threat perceptions explained 38% of the data;

hereafter ‘direct’ since it included direct anthropogenic (hunting and trade, overexploitation

and wind turbines) and natural (predators) life threats for bats. The second factor explained

34% of the data; hereafter ‘indirect’ since threats (habitat destruction, habitat modification

and roost disturbance) are not necessarily directly related to the killing of bats, but rather

to habitat deterioration and disturbance. The third factor explained 28% of the data and

included persecution (e.g., through negative beliefs about bats) and myths (leading to

negative behavior towards bats), hereafter ‘prejudice’ to capture the link between negative

beliefs and behavior towards bats. Disease did not load clearly on any factor (Table S4). As

for trust, the first factor included local and national authorities (38% of the data explained;

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 5 of 17

hereafter authorities), the second environmental and animal welfare NGOs (34%; hereafter

NGOs), the third the public and volunteers (28%; hereafter laypeople); whereas researchers

did not clearly load on any factor (Table S5). Average scores were calculated for the

respective factors on threat perception and trust and used as latent constructs whereas

discrete emotions were treated separately.

In the fourth step, we aimed to assess threat perception, trust and emotions of bat

experts among bat experts before and during the pandemic. Here, we treated first each

dataset independently to assess differences within each dataset using Kruskal–Wallis and

Dunn’s post hoc tests using ‘dunn.test’ version 1.3.5 [

] and ‘FSA’ version 0.9.3 [

]. Since

socio-demographic variables were largely similar between both groups before and during

the pandemic), we also assessed whether there were significant differences in these concepts

before and during the pandemic using an unpaired two-samples Wilcoxon test.

Open comments were analyzed using qualitative content analysis [

]. The cate-

gories of the open comments were developed following discussions from two independent

researchers to achieve a mutual understanding and sufficient consistency in inductive

category formation.

The predictive potential of emotions, trust and socio-demographic variables on threat

perception was calculated using ordinal logistic regression using the clmm function in

the package ‘ordinal’ version 12-10 [

] to allow for mixed effects. Here, the first set

of models included the three threat perception factors (direct, indirect and prejudice)

separately as predictor variables and the six discrete emotions, the four factors of trust used

as explanatory variables and the ‘ID’ of participants as a random effect. To compare models

with and without emotions, we used log-likelihood values to measure the goodness of fit

between models using the package ‘pscl’ version 1.5.5 [

]. In a second set of models, we

used socio-demographic variables as explanatory variables. We carried out these analyses

only for the dataset during the pandemic since this was our baseline and major focus of our

study (i.e., predictive potential of antecedents on threat perception). All statistical analyses

were undertaken using R version 4.1.2 [30].

3. Results

3.1. Survey Sample Characteristics

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020), we received 320 responses

from 77 countries (Table 1). Most respondents were from English-speaking countries

(37%), followed by participants from Catholic Europe (during: 26%) and the least from

the African–Islamic (2%) and Confucian (1%) culture clusters (Table 1). Most respondents

were 25–39 (38.4%) or 40–59 years old (43.3%). Gender of respondents was slightly skewed

towards males (54.6%). Respondents were mostly researchers (39.4%), followed by affiliates

of NGOs (14.4%; no differentiation whether employee or volunteer) and government

authorities (12.2%).

The distribution within the pre-pandemic sample, when 495 people from 65 countries

took part in the survey, was equal in terms of cultural cluster (x-squared = 11.81,

df = 7

p-value = 0.1071) and gender (x-squared = 2.26, df = 2, p= 0.33) distribution (Table 1).

However, the sample before the pandemic was significantly younger (63.7% between

25 and 39 years old, x-squared = 49.94, df = 4, p-value < 0.001) and respondents from the

consultant sector, volunteers and students participated in addition to the already mentioned

professional groups (Table 1).

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 6 of 17

Table 1.

Socio-demographics of respondents before (n = 495) and during (n = 320) the pandemic

showing number of participants (n) and percentage (%) within each survey round. More details

about the cultural clusters can be found in Figure 1and Table S6. Only age differed significantly

between the survey samples before and during the pandemic (p< 0.001, marked with ***).

Before COVID-19 During COVID-19

Cultural cluster n (%) or participants n (%) or participants

English-Speaking 216 (44%) 117 (37%)

Catholic Europe 105 (21%) 82 (26%)

Protestant Europe 79 (16%) 47 (15%)

African–Islamic 13 (3%) 7 (2%)

West and South Asia 14 (3%) 15 (5%)

Latin America 13 (3%) 11 (3%)

Orthodox Europe 12 (2%) 10 (3%)

Confucian 6 (1%) 3 (1%)

Other 37 (7%) 28 (9%)

Age ***

19–24 8 (1.6%) 8 (2.6%)

25–39 312 (63.7%) 118 (38.4%)

40–59 132 (26.9%) 133 (43.3%)

60–79 37 (7.6%) 46 (15.0%)

>79 1 (0.2%) 2 (0.7%)

NA 5 (NA) 13 (NA)

Gender

Male 238 (48.9%) 139 (54.6%)

Female 247 (50.7%) 167 (45.4%)

Diverse 2 (0.4%) 0

NA 8 14

Professional background

Consultant 40 (8.1%) 0

Government 58 (11.7%) 39 (12.2%)

NGO 91 (18.4%) 46 (14.4%)

Researcher 188 (38.0%) 126 (39.4%)

Student 15 (3%) 0

Volunteer 21 (4.3%) 0

Other a82 (16.6%) 95 (29.7%)

NA 0 14 (4.3%)

aOther participants could not be grouped into any of these sectors.

3.2. Threat Perception, Emotions and Social Trust before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

3.2.1. Social Trust

Comparison of trust in stakeholders before and during the pandemic

Before and during the pandemic, bat experts trusted researchers the most and au-

thorities the least to do what is right for bat conservation (Table 2, Figure 2). During the

pandemic, bat experts rated their trust in researchers and NGOs (in particular animal

welfare NGOs) higher whereas trust in laypeople lower (in particular the public) compared

to before the pandemic (Table 2, Figure 2). Trust in authorities did not differ significantly

between both groups of experts before and during the pandemic (Table 2, Figure 2).

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 7 of 17

Table 2.

Average scores (mean) and standard deviation (SD) of threat perception, social trust and

emotions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significance levels based on unpaired Wilcoxon

rank sum test comparing threat perception, social trust and emotions before and during the pandemic

with significant differences marked in bold.

Before COVID-19 Pandemic

(September 2019)

During COVID-19 Pandemic

(June 2020)

Mean ±SD Mean ±SD W and p-Value

Threat perception

Indirect 6.02 ±0.74 5.63 ±1.24 W = 59,480, p= 0.003

Habitat destruction 6.47 ±0.74 5.96 ±1.34 W = 65,024, p< 0.001

Habitat modification 6.02 ±0.96 5.24 ±1.36 W = 68,707, p< 0.001

Roost disturbance 5.60 ±1.05 5.72 ±1.29 W = 47,463, p< 0.001

Prejudice 4.73 ±1.27 5.92 ±1.20 W = 25,575, p< 0.0001

Persecution 4.85 ±1.33 5.95 ±1.24 W = 28,261, p< 0.001

Myths 4.60 ±1.48 5.88 ±1.38 W = 27,710, p< 0.001

Direct 4.50 ±1.09 4.19 ±1.25 W = 60,375, p= 0.0006

Hunting and trade

(only Pteropodida) 5.07 ±1.68 4.55 ±1.89 W = 64,065, p< 0.001

Wind turbines

(Pteropodidae not incl.) 4.85 ±1.49 4.43 ±1.59 W = 87,114, p< 0.001

Predators 3.88 ±1.30 3.82 ±1.47 W = 54,876, p= 0.68

Overexploitation 4.21 ±1.41 3.94 ±1.69 W = 60,667, p= 0.01

Disease 4.29 ±1.37 3.79 ±1.62 W = 63,767, p< 0.001

Social trust

Non-governmental organizations 4.99 ±1.22 5.16 ±1.23 W = 84,430, p= 0.001

Environmental NGOs 5.39 ±1.25 5.48 ±1.26 W = 71,202, p= 0.19

Animal welfare NGOs 4.59 ±1.61 4.86 ±1.55 W = 67,092, p= 0.01

Laypeople 4.13 ±1.12 3.83 ±1.10 W = 84,430, p= 0.001

Volunteers 5.11 ±1.22 4.94 ±1.40 W = 79,780, p= 0.12

Public 3.15 ±1.45 2.72 ±1.32 W = 65,315, p= 0.002

Authorities 3.59 ±1.44 3.54 ±1.50 W = 76,081, p= 0.62

Local authorities 3.45 ±1.52 3.33 ±1.58 W = 76,081, p= 0.62

National authorities 3.73 ±1.59 3.76 ±1.62 W = 74,053, p= 0.80

Researchers 5.58 ±1.21 5.81 ±1.21 W = 62,315, p= 0.001

Emotions

Positive

Joy 6.24 ±1.10 6.09 ±1.33 W = 64,806, p= 0.44

Interest 6.61 ±0.67 6.49 ±0.87 W = 65,195, p= 0.80

Compassion 5.64 ±1.56 6.00 ±1.39 W = 54,517; p= 0.002

Negative

Fear 1.36 ±0.84 1.35 ±0.88 W = 66,279, p= 0.09

Anger 1.35 ±0.90 1.37 ±1.03 W = 63,402, p= 0.47

Sadness 2.21 ±1.68 3.19 ±2.15 W = 47,136; p< 0.001

Comparing trust in stakeholders within each round

Pairwise comparisons using Dunn’s test for the dataset during the pandemic indicated

that trust in all stakeholders differed significantly (p< 0.001), except for trust in local and

national authorities (p= 0.10), between environmental NGOs and researchers (

p= 0.26

)

and animal welfare NGOs and volunteers (p< 0.99). Before the pandemic, trust in all

stakeholders also differed significantly (p< 0.001), except for, similarly in this round,

between local and national authorities (p= 0.18) and environmental NGOs and researchers

(p< 0.99), but in this first round there were also no significant differences for trust in

local authorities and the public (p= 0.21), as well as environmental NGOs and volunteers

(p= 0.08).

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 8 of 17

3.2.2. Discrete Emotions towards Bats

Comparison of emotions before and during the pandemic

Overall, positive emotions such as interest, joy and compassion for bats were high

among bat experts while negative emotions as sadness, fear and anger were low before and

during the pandemic (Table 2, Figure 2). During the pandemic, experts rated sadness and

compassion higher than before, whereas other emotions did not differ between periods

(Table 2, Figure 2).

Comparison of trust in stakeholders within each round

The Dunn’s test showed for the data during the pandemic that emotions significantly

differed (p> 0.001) except for anger with disgust (p< 0.99) and fear (p< 0.99), disgust and

fear (p= 0.99), compassion and interest (p= 0.37) and joy (p< 0.99) as well as interest and

joy (p= 0.96). Before the pandemic, patterns were broadly similar. While all emotions still

differed significantly from each other, in this case also compassion in relation to interest

and joy as well as interest and joy (p< 0.001) while anger and disgust (p< 0.99) and fear

(p< 0.99) and interest and joy (p= 0.49) were not significantly different from each other.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

Comparison of trust in stakeholders within each round

The Dunn’s test showed for the data during the pandemic that emotions significantly

differed (p > 0.001) except for anger with disgust (p < 0.99) and fear (p < 0.99), disgust and

fear (p = 0.99), compassion and interest (p = 0.37) and joy (p < 0.99) as well as interest and

joy (p = 0.96). Before the pandemic, patterns were broadly similar. While all emotions still

differed significantly from each other, in this case also compassion in relation to interest

and joy as well as interest and joy (p < 0.001) while anger and disgust (p < 0.99) and fear (p

< 0.99) and interest and joy (p = 0.49) were not significantly different from each other.

Figure 2. Differences in (a) threat perception, (b) emotions and (c) trust in decision makers ‘to do

what is right for bat conservation among bat experts before (September 2019) and during (June 2020,

i.e., three months in the COVID-19 pandemic’). Significance levels based on unpaired Wilcoxon rank

sum test are shown by ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

3.2.3. Threat Perception

Comparison of trust in stakeholders within each round

During the pandemic, threats through ‘prejudice’ were considered as a major threat

whereas before the pandemic ‘indirect’ threats were considered as major and ‘prejudice’

as least concern (Table 2, Figure 2). Threat perception through ‘prejudice’ was signifi-

cantly higher in bat experts after the onset of the pandemic (Table 2, Figure 2). In contrast,

‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ threat factors as well as disease were rated as significantly less severe

threats during compared to before the pandemic (Table 2, Figure 2).

Comparing trust in stakeholders within each round

During the pandemic, all threats were rated significantly different from each other as

shown by a pairwise Dunn’s test (p < 0.001), except for destruction with disturbance (p =

Figure 2.

Differences in (

) threat perception, (

) emotions and (

) trust in decision makers ‘to do

what is right for bat conservation among bat experts before (September 2019) and during (June 2020,

i.e., three months in the COVID-19 pandemic’). Significance levels based on unpaired Wilcoxon rank

sum test are shown by ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001.

3.2.3. Threat Perception

Comparison of trust in stakeholders within each round

During the pandemic, threats through ‘prejudice’ were considered as a major threat

whereas before the pandemic ‘indirect’ threats were considered as major and ‘prejudice’ as

least concern (Table 2, Figure 2). Threat perception through ‘prejudice’ was significantly

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 9 of 17

higher in bat experts after the onset of the pandemic (Table 2, Figure 2). In contrast, ‘indirect’

and ‘direct’ threat factors as well as disease were rated as significantly less severe threats

during compared to before the pandemic (Table 2, Figure 2).

Comparing trust in stakeholders within each round

During the pandemic, all threats were rated significantly different from each other

as shown by a pairwise Dunn’s test (p< 0.001), except for destruction with disturbance

(p= 0.49), myths (p< 0.99) and persecution (p< 0.99), disturbance with myths (p< 0.99),

persecution (p< 0.99) and modification (p= 0.06), disease with overexploitation (p< 0.99)

and predators (p< 0.99), myths and persecution (p< 0.99), overexploitation and predators

(p< 0.99) as well as hunting and wind turbines (p< 0.99). Before the pandemic, threats were

considered slightly different than during the pandemic. While pairwise comparison using

Dunn’s test indicated again that all threats were considered significantly different from each

other (p< 0.001), this did not relate to disease and myths (p< 0.99) and overexploitation

(

p= 0.82

), overexploitation and predators (p< 0.99), hunting and wind turbines (p= 0.26)

as well as persecution and wind turbines (p< 0.99).

Open comments during the pandemic

Open comments provided by participants during the pandemic (June 2020) could be

grouped into seven categories that reflected their observations and concerns three months

into the pandemic (Table 3). From most countries (n = 28), comments were about concerns

related to a negative media coverage of bats, and this was followed by (observed) roost

destruction from n = 24 countries, fear from spillover (n = 18) and request to kill bats and

even observations of killing bats (n = 17). Few comments were about forced stopping of

research (n = 5). Comments that mentioned that nothing specific was observed came from

n = 25 countries.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 10 of 17

Table 3.

Categories (in italics) derived from open comments during COVID

−

19 (June 2020). More details about the comments from each country and number of

countries are shown in Table S6.

Comment (#) Value Clusters and Countries (Number of Comments) Number of Countries

Concern about negative media coverage particularly through social media, image loss

and increasing antipathy towards bats

(n = 79)

Comments included, for instance, ‘Social media being used to propagate propaganda

against bats-increased persecution, less tolerance’ or ‘Social media has been a detriment to

bat conservation at this time’.

African–Islamic, Zambia (n = 2)

Catholic Europe, Belgium (n = 12), Croatia (n = 2), Estonia (n = 1), France (n = 3),

Italy (n = 2), Poland (n = 1), Portugal (n = 1), Slovenia (n = 1), Slovakia (n = 1) and

Spain (n = 4)

English-Speaking, Australia (n = 4), Canada (n = 6), New Zealand (n = 1),

UK (n = 17) and USA (n = 13)

Latin America, Mexico (n = 1), Peru (n = 1)

Protestant Europe, Germany (n = 3), the Netherlands (n = 2), Norway (n = 1),

Switzerland (n = 2)

Orthodox Europe, Bulgaria (n = 1), Ukraine (n = 1), Serbia (n = 2)

West and South Asia, South Africa (n = 3)

comments from countries ‘not in WVS 2020’, Mauritius (n = 1),

Saudi Arabia (n = 1)

Observed roost destruction

(n = 48)

Comments included, for instance, ‘Persecution of bats in buildings and destruction of

roosts has been demanded repeatedly through conventional and social media, even by

some medical experts’ or ‘ . . . destroying roosting habitat, stopping action intended to

create new roosting habitat . . . ’.

African–Islamic, Azerbaijan (n = 1), Uganda (n = 1), Zambia (n = 1)

Catholic Europe, Belgium (n = 3), Croatia (n = 1), France (n = 4), Italy (n = 1),

Poland (n = 3), Spain (n = 5)

English-Speaking, Canada (n = 1), USA (n = 3)

Latin America, Bolivia (n = 1), Mexico (n = 2), Peru (n = 1)

Orthodox Europe, Algeria (n = 1), Bulgaria (n = 1), Greece (n = 1)

Protestant Europe, Germany (n = 5), the Netherlands (n = 2)

West and South Asia, Malaysia (n = 2), South Africa (n = 4)

comments from countries ‘not in WVS 2020’, El Salvador (n = 1), Kenya (n = 1),

UK (n = 2)

Fear from spillover

(n = 48)

Comments included, for instance, ‘ . . . had issues dealing with people who believe bats

droppings in (name of country deleted) have a toxoplasmosis risk, rabies fears and now

spreading COVID-19 . . . ’ or ‘ . . . people are more scared of having bats at home than

before, mainly because of fear of disease transmission . . . ’.

African–Islamic, India (n = 1)

Catholic Europe, France (n = 2), Portugal (n = 1), Slovenia (n = 2), Spain (n = 3)

English-Speaking, Canada (n = 5), New Zealand (n = 1), UK (n = 8), USA (n = 11)

Confucian, Japan (n = 1)

Latin America, Peru (n = 1)

Orthodox Europe, Ukraine (n = 1)

Protestant Europe, Germany (n = 3), Switzerland (n = 2)

West and South Asia, Malaysia (n = 2), South Africa (n = 2)

comments from countries ‘not in WVS 2020’, El Salvador (n = 1),

Saudi Arabia (n = 1)

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 11 of 17

Table 3. Cont.

Comment (#) Value Clusters and Countries (Number of Comments) Number of Countries

Request to kill bats or observation that bats were killed

(n = 28)

Comments included, for instance, ‘ . . . (I) heard people are even more afraid of bats and

are killing them . . . ’ or ‘Grounded bats killed immediately . . . ’.

African–Islamic, Azerbaijan (n = 1), Zambia (n = 1)

Catholic Europe, Belgium (n = 2), Croatia (n = 1), France (n = 1), Poland (n = 2)

English-Speaking, Australia (n = 4), UK (n = 1), USA (n = 1)

Latin America, Mexico (n = 2)

Orthodox Europe, Bulgaria (n = 1)

Protestant Europe, Germany (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 2)

West and South Asia, Malaysia (n = 2)

comments from countries ‘not in WVS 2020’, El Salvador (n = 2), Kenya (n = 1),

Mauritius (n = 1)

Fear of having bats in buildings

(n = 31)

Comments included, for instance, ‘Fear concerns over colony in house or bat box and

potential to get COVID-19 from bats’ or ‘Increased concern regarding maternity/nursery

roosts in buildings’.

African–Islamic, South Africa (n = 4), Uganda (n = 1)

Catholic Europe, Italy (n = 1), Poland (n = 1), Portugal (n = 2), Slovenia (n = 1),

Spain (n = 2)

English-Speaking, Canada (n = 4), UK (n = 3)

Orthodox Europe, Ukraine (n = 1)

Protestant Europe, Germany (n = 3), Norway (n = 1), Switzerland (n = 5)

West and South Asia, Malaysia (n = 2)

comments from countries ‘not in WVS 2020’, Kenya (n = 1)

Forced stop of research

(n = 5)

Comments included, for instance, ‘All handling of alive or dead bats in wild has stopped’

or ‘ . . . due to lock-down all fieldwork has stopped . . . ’.

African–Islamic, Albania (n = 1)

Catholic Europe, Spain (n = 1)

English-Speaking, Canada (n = 1), UK (n = 1), USA (n = 1)

Protestant Europe, Germany (n = 1)

Nothing specific observed

(n = 79)

Comments included, for instance, ‘Nothing observed to date’ or ‘Nothing observed, yet’.

Catholic Europe, Belgium (n = 1), Croatia (n = 1), Czech Republic (n = 1),

France (n = 10), Hungary (n = 1),

Italy (n = 1), Portugal (n = 3)

Confucian, Japan (n = 2)

English-Speaking, Australia (n = 1), Canada (n = 3), UK (n = 14), USA (n = 18)

Latin America, Puerto Rico (n = 1)

Orthodox Europe, Bulgaria (n = 1), Ukraine (n = 1)

West and South Asia, Malaysia (n = 1), Singapore (n = 1), South Africa (n = 1)

Protestant Europe, Finland (n = 1), Germany (n = 10), Switzerland (n = 2)

comments from countries ‘not in WVS 2020’, Ireland (n = 1), Jordan (n = 1),

Latvia (n = 1)

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 12 of 17

3.3. Predictive Potential of Emotions, Social Trust and Socio-Demographic Variables on Perceived

Threats towards Bats

Emotions added to the predictive potential of all threat perceptions and the log-

likelihood value (LL) increased when emotions were included in the model (Table 4).

‘Prejudice’ was influenced by all six emotions. Joy was the only emotion that was a positive

predictor for all threat perceptions; particularly for ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’. Compassion was

a positive predictor for ‘prejudice’ and ‘direct’ threat perceptions.

Table 4.

Effects (estimates) and standard error (SE) of trust and emotions on threat perception based

on ordinal logistic regression using the dataset during the pandemic (June 2020). Significant results

are presented in bold.

Threat Indirect Prejudice Direct

Estimate ±SE p-Value LL

(df) Estimate ±SE p-Value LL

(df)

Trust −764.04

(34)

−641.99

(28)

−952.99

(57)

Authorities −0.23 ±0.09 0.01 −0.22±0.001 <0.001 −0.08 ±0.09 0.11

NGOs 0.12 ±0.11 0.29 0.06 ±0.001 <0.001 0.19 ±0.2 0.11

Laypeople 0.03 ±0.12 0.83 −0.40 ±0.001 <0.001 0.02 ±0.12 0.83

Researchers 0.05 ±0.11 0.83 0.02±0.001 <0.001 −0.05 ±0.11 0.61

Emotions −695.12

(40)

−589.28

(33)

−874.42

(63)

Joy 0.45 ±0.12 <0.001 0.13 ±0.001 <0.001 0.42 ±0.12 <0.001

Interest 0.02 ±0.16 0.89 0.07 ±0.001 <0.001 −0.23 ±0.16 0.16

Compassion 0.19 ±0.10 0.06 0.32 ±0.001 <0.001 0.32 ±0.10 0.002

Anger 0.21 ±0.14 0.14 0.06 ±0.001 <0.001 0.27 ±0.15 0.06

Fear 0.27 ±0.18 0.13 0.10 ±0.001 <0.001 0.28 ±0.18 0.13

Sadness −0.03 ±0.06 0.59 0.07 ±0.001 <0.001 −0.08 ±0.06 0.21

Similar to emotions, ‘prejudice’ was influenced by trust in all four decision makers.

In detail, increasing trust in authorities decreased bat experts’ threat perception related to

‘prejudice’ and ‘indirect’; similarly, increasing trust in laypeople decreased their perception

of the threat ‘prejudice’. In contrast, an increased trust in NGOs and researchers was a

positive predictor for ‘prejudice’ threat perception (Table 4).

As for socio-demographic variables, male bat experts perceived all three threat cat-

egories as less severe compared to female bat experts (Table 5). Age showed predictive

potential for ‘prejudice’ and ‘direct’ threats with older participants considering these threats

less severe than younger participants.

Cultural differences were identified predominantly for ‘direct’ threats (Table 5). Here,

participants from Confucian value clusters considered ‘direct’ threats as lower, but partici-

pants from Catholic Europe, English-speaking, Latin American and WSEA value clusters

considered them as more severe than participants from African–Islamic cultures. As for

threats through ‘prejudice’, participants from English-speaking value cultures considered

these threats as more severe than participants from African–Islamic cultures.

As for professional background, participants working in NGOs, researchers and par-

ticipants from the category ‘other’ considered threats through ‘prejudice’ more severe than

participants working in governmental institutions (Table 5). In contrast, researchers consid-

ered ‘direct’ threats less severe than participants working in governmental institutions.

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 13 of 17

Table 5.

Effects (estimates and standard error) of socio-demographic variables on threat perception

based on ordinal logistic regression. Significant results are presented in bold.

Threat Indirect Prejudice Direct

Estimate ±SE p-Value Estimate ±SE p-Value Estimate ±SE p-Value

Socio-demographic variables

Gender(compared to women)

Men −0.66 ±0.27 0.01 −1.35 ±0.24 <0.001 −0.89 ±0.001 <0.001

Age (compared to 18–24)

25–39 −0.37 ±0.79 0.64 −1.26 ±0.001 <0.001 −0.60 ±0.22 <0.01

40–59 −0.40 ±0.79 0.61 −1.28 ±0.23 <0.001 −0.42 ±0.001 <0.001

60–79 −0.30 ±0.83 0.72 −1.05 ±0.36 0.003 −0.19 ±0.32 0.72

>79 −1.15 ±1.31 0.38 −1.44 ±1.09 0.19 −0.40 ±1.06 0.71

Cultural cluster (compared to African-Islamic)

Cath. Europe −0.66 ±0.50 0.07 −0.28 ±0.28 0.32 1.12 ±0.27 <0.001

Confucian −0.56 ±1.07 0.17 −0.13 ±0.90 0.88 −1.83 ±1.01 0.07

Engl.-speaking −0.68 ±0.48 0.48 0.04 ±0.001 <0.001 1.26 ±0.001 <0.001

Latin American 1.91 ±0.69 0.53 0.64 ±0.49 0.19 1.70 ±0.50 <0.01

Orthodox 0.03 ±0.71 0.97 0.05 ±0.55 0.94 0.41 ±0.64 0.52

Prot. European 0.78 ±0.52 0.13 −0.50 ±0.39 0.14 0.14 ±0.32 0.66

WSEA 2.03 ±1.40 0.15 0.44 ±1.30 0.74 2.21 ±1.08 0.05

Profession (compared to government)

NGO 0.42 ±0.47 0.38 0.78 ±0.32 0.01 −0.39 ±0.33 0.23

Researcher 0.77 ±0.42 0.08 1.19 ±0.26 <0.001 −0.46 ±0.001 <0.001

Other 0.74 ±0.42 0.08 0.96 ±0.001 <0.001 −0.28 ±0.25 0.34

4. Discussion

Expert views are crucial to identify research and conservation directions, particularly

in the absence of data [

]. However, how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced bat

experts’ views globally has received little attention to date. Further, we were interested

in our study about antecedents (emotions and social trust) of threat perception. We show

that concerns in relation to persecution and myths as well as emotions of both compassion

and sadness related to bats were higher among bat experts during the pandemic compared

to the pre-pandemic survey. Trust in researchers and NGOs to do what is best for bat

conservation was higher among experts during the pandemic compared to before. In

contrast, trust in laypeople in this matter was lower among experts during the pandemic

than before. Authorities were generally low trusted by bat experts, before and during the

pandemic. While patterns of emotions related to bats, social trust in decision makers and

threat perception differed among bat experts during the pandemic compared to before,

besides social trust, emotions were important predictors for threat perception during the

pandemic; particularly for threats related to prejudice.

4.1. Threat Perception, Emotions and Social Trust of Bat Experts before and during the Pandemic

Overall, bat experts stated before the pandemic that major threats to bats are ‘indirect’

such as habitat deterioration and disturbance compared to ‘direct’ threats such as predators.

While threats through habitat deterioration (e.g., logging, agriculture or urbanization)

are also assessed by the IUCN as major threats for global bat populations [

], concerns

related to prejudice, e.g., persecution due to misinformation, were slightly but significantly

higher and even considered as major threats to bats during the pandemic. In fact, a rise

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 14 of 17

in bat evictions from buildings and the legislative proposal for culling disease-relevant

wildlife has been found in China shortly after the start of the pandemic and linked to

the putative connection between bats and SARS-CoV-2 [

] as well as increased media

coverage about the role of bats in the pandemic [

]. The open comments in the survey

during the pandemic also underpin this concern about the negative media coverage of

bats and possible consequences that were also already observed in some cases of roost

destruction, and request to kill bats and even observations of killing of bats. Our survey

was undertaken three months after the official declaration of the pandemic and is the

immediate response of bat experts. Clearly, while at this stage it is still difficult to assess

the long-term impact of the pandemic on bat populations, the coming years will reveal the

consequences of this global pandemic on global bat conservation. The coming years will

also reveal whether the concern about the public in relation to bat conservation (e.g., fear

of bats in buildings) was justified. In any case, bat experts might benefit from working

closely together with the public during this time to work with the fears and concerns

related to e.g., ‘living with or close to bats’ among the public. While it is not surprising

that bat experts expressed predominantly positive emotions about their study animal, they

expressed during the pandemic more sadness and compassion when we asked them how

they felt about bats. The pandemic has certainly changed our outlook on life and we cannot

rule out whether this higher sadness or compassion was due to a general emotional process

caused by, e.g., personal losses. Nevertheless, given that we asked participants in our

survey to self-assess their emotions when they thought specifically about bats, we interpret

the stronger expression of compassion and sadness during the pandemic as the concern

about bats and their conservation, i.e., as a response to potential losses of a valued study

taxon and ecologically driven grief [19].

4.2. Predictive Potential of Social Trust, Emotions and Socio-Demographic Variables on

Threat Perception

Aligning with earlier studies, we found effects of emotions on threat perceptions [

Including the discrete variables ‘emotions’ even improved the goodness of fit in our models

which underpins their important role for threat perception. However, while the category

‘fear’ is an important factor in explaining threat appraisal [

], fear was not the most promi-

nent predictor for threat perception among bat experts but rather positive emotions joy and

compassion. While ‘prejudice’ was predicted by all investigated emotions, joy and com-

passion predicted all three perceived threats. Here, we see the importance of the emotion

compassion when it comes to non-human animal-related issues [

]. While emotions might

be still considered cautiously within the scientific community [

], investigating the role

of compassion within (wildlife) experts and their study animals might be an interesting

avenue to pursue and could benefit the ongoing discussions about the extent of ethical

consideration in wildlife conservation practices [

]. Sadness was the only negative

emotion predicting threat perception (prejudice). Sadness is generally associated with

the appraisal of permanent loss [

] that we interpret in our study as concern about the

loss of bat species (i.e., ‘ecological grief’, [

]). In relation to trust, the more participants

trusted authorities and laypeople, the less they were concerned about threats towards

bats; particularly threats through ‘prejudice’, i.e., persecution and myths. While trust in

authorities was overall low, this underpins the important role that trust in authorities plays

in wildlife-related issues [

]. Trust in laypeople decreased during the pandemic. Here,

including laypeople in conservation issues can benefit from communication strategies that

address (mis)beliefs around bats and their role in the pandemic [37].

In relation to socio-demographic variables, while male bat experts considered all

threats to bats as generally less severe than female bat experts, cultural differences were

identified predominantly for ‘direct’ threats. We interpret these results accordingly: ‘indi-

rect’ threats are commonly considered as major threats among bat experts whereas ‘direct’

threats are context- and consequently culture-specific (e.g., hunting and trade do not relate

to all countries). The same relates to ‘prejudice’, while this was, however, only considered

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 15 of 17

as more severe among participants from the English-speaking country cluster compared to

participants from the African–Islamic value cluster. Given the high number of participants

from English-speaking countries, this could also have driven the high concern for threats

through ‘prejudice’ in the second round of our surveys. As for professional background, all

participants considered threats through ‘prejudice’ as more severe compared to participants

working for governmental institutions, while participants working for governmental insti-

tutions considered ‘indirect’ threats more severe than researchers. Acknowledging these

different perceptions about threat is crucial in this context; particularly if collaborations are

the aim that require consensus of threat mitigations in contexts of concern.

With this study, we clearly took a unique opportunity to undertake the same sur-

vey with bat experts shortly before and after the start of the pandemic and can show

how the COVID-19 pandemic has potentially influenced their threat perceptions, emo-

tions and social trust. Since similar studies did not have the data before the start of the

pandemic [4,5,22]

, we see our study as a unique contribution to the literature. Nevertheless,

there are certain limitations that need to be considered. For instance, we cannot verify

how many participants in the first round of the survey also participated in the second

round of the survey, i.e., a comparison between both periods needs to be done carefully.

Further, cross-sectional studies have predictive potential but only with longitudinal data

is it possible to establish a true cause and effect relationship [

]. Consequently, evidence

for the relationships between emotions, social trust and threat perception that we found

in our study would require longitudinal surveys, possibly with the same participants, to

detect the long-term effect of this crisis on bat experts. Lastly, most of our respondents

were from the Global North and fewer from the biodiverse Global South where human–bat

conflicts are highest and legal protection of bats lowest. Consequently, bat expert views and

emotions as presented in this manuscript are biased towards the Global North. However,

despite these limitations, there are three important lessons relevant for practice and policy.

‘Prejudice’ was the highest considered threat among bat experts within the pandemic that

was also underpinned in the open comments provided, whereas trust in laypeople was

lower compared to before the pandemic. Hence, a focus on mitigation strategies to address

this issue should become a focus for bat conservation. One approach is communication

strategies [

] and the next steps would be evaluating the effectiveness of these. Further,

trust in researchers increased with the pandemic. Trust is an important component when it

comes to collaborations and to the resolution of conservation conflicts [

] and the shared

increased concern among bat experts for bats and their conservation during the pandemic

provides clear opportunities for collaborations to avoid persecution of bats in the aftermath

of the pandemic [

]. Lastly, sadness and compassion were higher among bat experts

during the pandemic. With increased concern about zoonotic spillovers [

], ‘ecological

grief’, i.e., intense feelings of grief as response to, e.g., losses of valued species [

]), might

intensify within the conservation community. Hence, we support the idea of Cunsolo and

Ellis [19] that this still underdeveloped area of inquiry requires urgent attention.

5. Conclusions

Bat expert assessments related to threats that bats are facing due to the COVID-19

pandemic are crucial, particularly in the absence of data. In our survey, experts assessed

threats through persecution as more severe during the pandemic. While this has already

been reported to some extent in China [

], it is still difficult to assess the long-term con-

sequences of the pandemic on bat conservation and the coming years will shed light on

the impact of the pandemic on bat conservation. In any case, working closely together

with the public and their fears and concerns related to e.g., ‘living with or close to bats’ has

received certainly another dimension during this pandemic. Trust in researchers increased

among bat experts during the COVID-19 crisis which can be clearly an advantage to foster

collaborative efforts and, in fact, calls for collaborative efforts among bat experts appeared

since the pandemic [

]. Despite skepticism about the role of emotions within the scientific

community [

], decisions are hardly free of emotional processes [

]. Here, we showed

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 16 of 17

that emotions are besides social trust important predictors for threat perception of bats.

Recognizing emotions within the scientific community, particularly related to ‘ecological

grief’ as a response to (potential) species losses is still an understudied area. Nevertheless,

‘ecological grief’ of experts related to the specific study species would benefit from more

attention, particularly as situations related to species loss worsen; whether driven through

human behavior or climate change.

Supplementary Materials:

The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su141811242/s1, Table S1: Concepts and items used in sur-

vey. Table S2: Average rating for emotions towards bats and Pteropodidae on a 7-point scale.

Table S3

Average rating for threat perception of bats and Pteropodidae on a 7-point scale.

Table S4

: Ex-

ploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation for threats before and during the pandemic.

Table S5

Exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation for trust before and during the pandemic. Table S6:

Countries of respondents (n = 815) from 77 countries grouped into the eight value clusters from the

world value survey (2020). Table S7: Number of comments to the open question per category and

country. Figure S1: Recruitment process of both surveys.

Author Contributions:

Conceptualization, T.M.S. and C.C.V.; Formal analysis, T.M.S.; Investigation,

T.M.S.; Methodology, T.M.S. and C.C.V.; Writing—original draft, T.M.S.; Writing—review & editing,

C.C.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding:

We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and the Open Access

Publication Fund of TU Berlin.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement:

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in

the study.

Acknowledgments:

We thank all participants who took part in the survey and the translators of the

survey (French: A. Seltman, N. Fasel and V. Cabon and Spanish: G. Planchuelo). We also thank two

anonymous reviewers and Sophia Kochalski for providing helpful comments that improved our

manuscript and Liam Bailey for statistical advice.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Simmons, N.B.; Cirranello, A.L. Bat Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Database. 2020. Available online:

https://batnames.org/ (accessed on 24 February 2021).

Frick, W.F.; Kingston, T.; Flanders, J. A review of the major threats and challenges to global bat conservation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.

2019,1469, 5–25. [CrossRef]

Mickleburgh, S.P.; Hutson, A.M.; Racey, P.A. A review of the global conservation status of bats. Oryx

2002

,36, 18–34. [CrossRef]

Lu, M.; Wang, X.; Ye, H.; Wang, H.; Qiu, S.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; Luo, J.; Feng, J. Does public fear that bats spread COVID-19

jeopardize bat conservation? Biol. Conserv. 2021,254, 108952. [CrossRef]

Sasse, D.B.; Gramza, A.R. Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on public attitudes toward bats in Arkansas and implications for

bat management. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2021,26, 90–93. [CrossRef]

Carlson, C.J.; Albery, G.F.; Merow, C.; Trisos, C.H.; Zipfel, C.M.; Eskew, E.A.; Olival, K.J.; Ross, N.; Bansal, S. Climate change

increases cross-species viral transmission risk. Nature 2022,607, 555–562. [CrossRef]

7. Cohen, R. Threat perception in international crisis. Political Sci. Q. 1978,93, 93–107. [CrossRef]

Terpstra, T. Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: Affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Anal. Int. J.

2011,31, 1658–1675. [CrossRef]

Ghasemi, B.; Landon, A.C.; Miller, C.A.; Williams, B.D. Trust and Emotions Predict Support for Large Carnivore Recovery in the

Absence of Real Threats. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021,34, 1318–1337. [CrossRef]

10.

Visschers, V.H.M.; Siegrist, M. Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect, and risk perception: A review of the

literature. Risk Manag. 2008,10, 156–167. [CrossRef]

11.

Kim, H.J.; Cameron, G.T. Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the publics’ response to crisis news framing

and corporate crisis response. Commun. Res. 2011,38, 826–855. [CrossRef]

12.

Hermann, N.; Menzel, S. Threat perception and attitudes of adolescents towards re-introduced wild animals: A qualitative study

of young learners from affected regions in Germany. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2013,35, 3062–3094. [CrossRef]

13.

Castillo-Huitrón, N.M.; Naranjo, E.J.; Santos-Fita, D.; Estrada-Lugo, E. The importance of human emotions for wildlife conserva-

tion. Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 1277. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022,14, 11242 17 of 17

14. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2011.

15. Earle, T.C.; Cvetkovich, G. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society; Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 1995.

16.

Sponarski, C.C.; Vaske, J.J.; Bath, A.J.; Musiani, M.M. Salient values, social trust, and attitudes toward wolf management in

south-western Alberta, Canada. Environ. Conserv. 2014,41, 303–310. [CrossRef]

17.

Martin, T.G.; Burgman, M.A.; Fidler, F.; Kuhnert, P.M.; Low-Choy, S.; McBride, M.; Mengersen, K. Eliciting expert knowledge in

conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 2012,26, 29–38. [CrossRef]

18.

Hagerman, S.; Dowlatabadi, H.; Satterfield, T.; McDaniels, T. Expert views on biodiversity conservation in an era of climate

change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010,20, 192–207. [CrossRef]

19.

Cunsolo, A.; Ellis, N.R. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nat. Clim. Chang.

2018

,8,

275–281. [CrossRef]

20.

Kingston, T. Cute, creepy, or crispy—How values, attitudes, and norms shape human behavior toward bats. In Bats in the

Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 571–595.

21.

Manfredo, M.J.; Teel, T.L.; Sullivan, L.; Dietsch, A.M. Values, trust, and cultural backlash in conservation governance: The case of

wildlife management in the United States. Biol. Conserv. 2017,214, 303–311. [CrossRef]

22.

Cerri, J.; Mori, E.; Ancillotto, L.; Russo, D.; Bertolino, S. COVID-19, media coverage of bats and related Web searches: A turning

point for bat conservation? Mammal Rev. 2022,52, 16–25. [CrossRef]

23. Dragan, I.M.; Isaic-Maniu, A. Snowball sampling completion. J. Stud. Soc. Sci. 2013,5, 2.

24.

Revelle, W. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research; Version 2.2.5; Northwestern University: Evanston, IL, USA,

2022. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (accessed on 24 February 2021).

25.

Dinno, A. Dunn Test: Dunn’s Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums, R Package Version 1.3.5; 2017. Available online:

https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dunn.test (accessed on 24 February 2021).

26.

Ogle, D.H.; Doll, J.C.; Wheeler, P.; Dinno, A. FSA: Fisheries Stock Analysis, R Package Version 0.9.3; 2022. Available online:

https://github.com/fishR-Core-Team/FSA (accessed on 24 February 2021).

27. Mayring, P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse; Beltz Verlagsgruppe: Weinheim, Germany, 2010.

28. Christensen, R.H.B. Ordinal-Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R Package Version 2019.12-10, 2019.

29.

Jackman, S. Pscl: Classes and Methods for R Developed in the Political Science Computtional Laboratory, R Package Version 1.5.5; United

States Studies Centre, University of Sydney: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2020.

30.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna,

Austria, 2021.

31.

Zelenski, J.M.; Desrochers, J.E. Can positive and self-transcendent emotions promote pro-environmental behavior? Curr. Opin.

Psychol. 2021,42, 31–35. [CrossRef]

32.

Nelson, M.P.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Vucetich, J.A.; Chapron, G. Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions:

Lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conserv. Lett. 2016,9, 302–306. [CrossRef]

33.

Oommen, M.A.; Cooney, R.; Ramesh, M.; Archer, M.; Brockington, D.; Buscher, B.; Fletcher, R.; Natusch, D.J.D.; Vanak, A.T.;

Webb, G.; et al. The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2019,33, 784–787. [CrossRef]

34. Ramp, D.; Bekoff, M. Compassion as a practical and evolved ethic for conservation. BioScience 2015,65, 323–327. [CrossRef]

35.

Bonanno, G.A.; Goorin, L.; Coifman, K.G. Sadness and grief. In Handbook of Emotions; Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J.M.,

Barrett, L.F., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 797–810.

36.

Needham, M.D.; Vaske, J.J. Hunter perceptions of similarity and trust in wildlife agencies and personal risk associated with

chronic wasting disease. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2008,21, 197–214. [CrossRef]

37.

MacFarlane, D.; Rocha, R. Guidelines for communicating about bats to prevent persecution in the time of COVID-19. Biol. Conserv.

2020,248, 108650. [CrossRef]

38. Solem, R.C. Limitation of a cross-sectional study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2015,148, 205. [CrossRef]

39.

Shapiro, J.T.; Víquez, R.L.; Leopardi, S.; Vicente-Santos, A.; Mendenhall, I.H.; Frick, W.F.; Kading, R.C.; Medellin, R.A.;

Racey, P.;

Kingston, T. Setting the terms for zoonotic diseases: Effective communication for research, conservation, and public policy. Viruses

2021,13, 1356. [CrossRef]

40.

Young, J.C.; Searle, K.; Butler, A.; Simmons, P.; Watt, A.D.; Jordan, A. The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflict.

Biol. Conserv. 2016,195, 196–202. [CrossRef]

41.

Rocha, R.; Aziz, S.A.; Brook, C.E.; Carvalho, W.D.; Cooper-Bohannon, R.; Frick, W.F.; Huang, J.C.-C.; Kingston, T.;

Lopez-Baucells, A.;

Maas, B.; et al. Bat conservation and zoonotic disease risk: A research agenda to prevent misguided

persecution in the aftermath of COVID-19. Anim. Conserv. 2020,24, 303–307. [CrossRef]