See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267872032

The role of one health in wildlife conservation: A challenge and

opportunity

Article  in  Journal of Wildlife Diseases · November 2014

DOI: 10.7589/2014-01-004 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

45 2,760

3 authors, including:

Danielle E Buttke Margaret A. Wild

National Park Service Washington State University
43 PUBLICATIONS   961 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   2,054 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Plague View project

NPS wildlife management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Danielle E Buttke on 18 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PERSPECTIVE
DOI: 10.7589/2014-01-004 Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 51(1), 2015, pp. 1–8
# Wildlife Disease Association 2015

THE ROLE OF ONE HEALTH IN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: A

CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY
Danielle E. Buttke,1,3 Daniel J. Decker,2 and Margaret A. Wild1
1
National Park Service, Wildlife Health Branch, Biological Resource Management Division, 1201 Oakridge Drive,
Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525, USA
2
Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, 111B Fernow Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
3
Corresponding author (email: Danielle_Buttke@nps.gov)

ABSTRACT: Numerous emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) have arisen from or been identified in
wildlife, with health implications for both humans and wildlife. In the practice of wildlife
conservation, to date most attention has focused on the threat EIDs pose to biodiversity and
wildlife population viability. In the popular media and public eye, however, wildlife is often only
portrayed as the cause of EIDs and resultant human health impacts. There is little coverage on the
roles of human-induced habitat destruction or wildlife population stress in EID spread, nor the
negative impacts of disease on wildlife. Here, we focus on a little-studied and seldom discussed
concern: how real and perceived risks of wildlife-associated diseases for human and companion
animal health might erode public support for wildlife conservation. We believe that wildlife-
associated EIDs and public perceptions of these risks are among the most important threats to
wildlife conservation. In light of this concern, we explore the challenges and opportunities for
addressing this situation in a One Health context that emphasizes the interdisciplinary
collaboration and the inextricable nature of human and animal health and disease.
Key words: Emerging infectious disease, One Health, risk perception, wildlife conservation,
wildlife disease.

INTRODUCTION concept of wildlife management has been

adopted, adapted, and elaborated by
Wildlife conservation faces many others (e.g., Decker et al. 2012a), but the
threats. Direct threats include habitat basic idea is little changed over the last
degradation and depletion, overexploita- 35 yr. Starting from this wildlife manage-
tion, and, increasingly, impacts of wildlife ment model, we define wildlife conserva-
diseases on population viability (Daszak tion as:
et al. 2000). Added to these direct threats,
increasing occurrences of negative hu- avoiding threats to wildlife populations,
man-wildlife interactions, including wild- species, and habitats, and where neces-
life disease, can become indirect threats sary, restoring wildlife populations,
when they generate media attention and habitats, and the ecologic processes
have socially amplified risks (Ho et al. necessary to sustain wildlife, as well as
2007), which have the potential to de- influencing people (individuals, com-
crease the social acceptability of human munities, and institutions) such that
coexistence with wildlife (Decker et al. human behavior does not degrade
2010). This is a vitally important consid- wildlife, habitats, or ecologic processes,
eration for wildlife conservation because, and instead supports the philosophy,
without social acceptance of wildlife, ethic, and practice of conservation.
social support for conservation will de-
crease (Decker et al. 2010, 2011, 2012a). While the bulk of wildlife conservation
The general model of wildlife manage- scholarship has focused on biologic and
ment is the practice of manipulating ecologic issues (including effects of wild-
wildlife populations, habitats, humans, life disease in conservation; Daszak et al.
and their interactions (Giles 1978). This 2000; Deem et al. 2001), we emphasize a

1
2 JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2015

human-dimensions or social-science con- the health of all species. It is a movement

sideration in our definition and argue its capable of mobilizing multiple sectors and
importance in the wildlife and veterinary combining resources to most efficiently
professions’ approach to One Health (i.e., tackle issues that affect the health of
the interdisciplinary integration of human, multiple species or resources. However,
animal, and environmental health due to this focus on the interconnectedness of
the recognition that these three are different species could have unintended
linked). Wildlife conservation is a philos- negative consequences in a naı̈ve or risk-
ophy of managing wildlife populations and averse audience if care is not taken to
their environment in a manner that does consider and address the lack of context or
not despoil, exhaust, or extinguish species knowledge the general public may have
or their habitats. Furthermore, wildlife regarding zoonotic disease. Emerging
conservation is not just an unrelated set of infectious diseases (EIDs) associated with
policies, practices, and supporting science, wildlife can exacerbate negative public
but it is a coherent ethic of resource use, perceptions of wildlife and erode public
allocation, and protection. Widespread support for conservation and value of
societal belief in and adherence to this wildlife due to the fear of human health
conservation ethic enable conservation consequences (Decker et al. 2011). This is
(i.e., the practice of conservation contin- a potentially serious situation for wildlife
ues to be supported as long as society conservation that requires conscientious
agrees with the philosophy and ethic of effort and urgency to avoid an undesirable
conservation). Wildlife conservation is outcome.
therefore a societal value (or set of values) While the human dimensions of wildlife
in a normative belief system (philosophy disease management are challenging in
and ethics), and associated actions are general, zoonotic diseases make the social
collectively the practice of wildlife conser- aspects of wildlife conservation much
vation. We view support for conservation more complex and important (Peterson
not as a given, but as a product of societal et al. 2006). Because wildlife-associated
experiences and beliefs, where experi- health and safety hazards present risks to
enced or perceived positive impacts of more citizens than perhaps ever before,
wildlife exceed negative impacts of wild- the balance between positive and negative
life. This suggests that significant dimin- wildlife-associated impacts may be gradu-
ishment in the belief that wildlife has ally moving toward the negative in many
value and net public benefit could cause places (Butler et al. 2003). As pointed out
erosion in the societal backing for wildlife already, we see this as a possible reduction
conservation (Decker et al. 2010). Thus, in societal tolerance of wildlife. The
sustaining societal support for wildlife relative contribution of wildlife-associated
conservation hinges on enduring positive disease to this emergent conservation
net benefits for society from wildlife. threat is currently unknown, but there
Absent that positive net outcome, wildlife are indications that this phenomenon
conservation would be in jeopardy. should be taken seriously by wildlife
Applying this logic to One Health, it is conservationists, including significant de-
reasonable to assume that wildlife-associ- creases in community tolerance for wild-
ated disease may reduce society’s percep- life such as coyotes or white-tailed deer
tions of wildlife’s benefits and increase due to perceived disease concerns (Deck-
negative perceptions of wildlife. One er et al. 2010). In the absence of effective
Health links animal, environmental, and disease management and risk communi-
human health outcomes, both conceptu- cation interventions, wildlife-associated
ally and in practice. One Health is disease risk perception may negatively
intended and has great potential to benefit affect public tolerance of wildlife and
 BUTTKE ET AL.—PERSPECTIVE 3

significantly diminish the value society wildlife disease risk perceptions of health
places on wildlife conservation. One professionals and wildlife managers. Wild-
Health messages may have an effect on life-associated disease is rapidly rising as a
perceptions of wildlife and EIDs, but in public health concern and is affecting
what direction will they shift the balance? more communities and individuals than
Communicating One Health as the inter- perhaps at any time. However, the general
connectedness of human and animal public may still have limited awareness or
health, particularly as related to diseases, concern about wildlife diseases (Hanisch-
could tip the balance either way. Kirkbride et al. 2013). This may be
beneficial in providing time required for
CONTEXT necessary research to proactively develop
effective risk messaging.
During the latter half of the 20th The human-dimensions implications of
century, negative concerns associated with wildlife disease (i.e., not simply human or
wildlife expanded from historical worries wildlife health) have rarely been a focus of
about economic impacts on agriculture research, and calls to understand these
and forest regeneration to include motor- implications have been few and only
vehicle collisions involving larger animals recently voiced (Decker et al. 2010).
and human safety threats from encounters Milton Friend’s (2012) informative article,
with large carnivores. The interest of ‘‘Transformation through time: How wild-
wildlife professionals and the public in life disease became a focus of conserva-
the economic, safety, and health impacts of tion,’’ outlines the history of wildlife
human-wildlife interactions has grown disease interest and response by the
during the last two decades as more people wildlife profession, but it does not indicate
have become aware of and experienced that public perceptions of wildlife disease
negative consequences of wildlife pres- should be a concern for effects on support
ence. These negative consequences include for conservation.
damage to property by habituated wildlife The potential impacts of wildlife disease
in human-dominated landscapes, threats to are concerning for a variety of reasons,
pets and livestock, and wildlife-associated including our focus—erosive effects on
zoonoses (Conover 2001). Wildlife-associated support for wildlife conservation. Conser-
disease has been a long-time and persistent vation is largely a grass-roots movement,
concern in many developing countries, but in that accumulated local community
aside from rabies and a few other ‘‘legacy’’ support drives overall conservation sup-
diseases, wildlife-associated disease had port. Opposition to wildlife presence also
not been widely perceived as a major can emanate as a powerful, community-
human or wildlife risk in other parts of level force (e.g., controversy over wolves
the world. and brown bears), and the importance of
However, wildlife-associated disease this should not be overlooked as negative
awareness, beyond effects on wildlife human-wildlife interactions accumulate.
species of interest to the public, has grown As the human population continues to
in the wake of evidence that 75% of all grow, the loss of natural habitat expands,
EIDs are zoonotic, most originate in and wildlife populations continue their
wildlife, and EID incidence has continued recovery, the frequency of human-wildlife
to increase since 1940 (Jones et al. 2008). interactions has and will continue to
The advent of Lyme disease, West Nile increase (Madden 2004). Natural hazards
virus encephalitis, chronic wasting disease, of all types have potential to diminish or
and the possibility of zoonotic avian subdue enthusiasm for human interaction
influenzas, among others, has heightened with the outdoors, but we can expect those
awareness and changed the attitudes and where risk perceptions are strong and
4 JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2015

negative to be especially problematic. Risk negative human-wildlife interactions re-

in the wildlife context refers to the ported in far-off or wild places, wildlife-
possibility that a wildlife event or interac- associated disease may bring a perceived
tion leads to negative outcomes for people hazard to the communities and doorsteps
or something people value (Slovic 1987; of millions of citizens.
Klinke and Renn 2002), such as pets or Unfortunately, the benefits of biodiver-
particular wildlife species. Wildlife-associ- sity and natural habitats in reducing
ated disease has all the traits of a hazard zoonotic disease risk (Schmidt and Ostfeld
where risk perceptions can be magnified 2001; Myers et al. 2013) are less well
above actual risk and be socially amplified publicized or conceptualized by the pub-
(i.e., elevated to a level where dread of lic; while Lyme disease and West Nile
wildlife disease can exceed human support virus have arrived in the neighborhoods
for the benefits provided by wildlife and local news station of many Americans,
presence). These risk traits include: nov- awareness of biodiversity’s protective
elty, potential for high-consequence out- health benefits has rarely spread beyond
comes (i.e., severe illness or death), lack of scientific circles and lacks the tangible,
individual and societal ability to control personal outcome that a local illness can
the threats, and others (Slovic 1987). bring. Furthermore, as biodiversity and
These same traits also stimulate media habitat loss continue, so do the increases
reporting, which can contribute to either in EIDs and human health threats result-
the amplification or attenuation of public ing from ecosystem degradation (Myers
risk perceptions (Heberlein and Stedman et al. 2013).
2009).
Perhaps if the rise in wildlife-associated WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
EIDs were occurring in a different time,
the concern about effects on conservation The wildlife conservation community
would be less than it is today. However, needs to address communication about
we live in an increasingly risk-averse wildlife-associated disease with serious
society (Beck 1992) during a time of high intent and partner with the broader health
uncertainty about habitat and climate communities to reduce unnecessarily ex-
change effects (Shaw et al. 2012). Thus, treme risk perceptions and promote ben-
it is especially important for the wildlife efits of nature and wildlife. The human
conservation community to make con- and domestic animal health fields are
scious efforts to sustain wildlife conserva- obvious partners, but wildlife professionals
tion support in any situation that may are not typically included in conversations
increase individual and community per- between these groups (Decker et al.
ceptions of risks from coexistence with 2011). Decker et al. (2011) recently
wildlife. Urban, suburban, and exurban identified four main sets of actors in the
populations are increasingly encountering wildlife-associated disease communication
wildlife in their neighborhoods (Kretser system—human health professionals,
et al. 2008). These populations are largely wildlife veterinarians, wildlife biologists/
inexperienced with wildlife and may be managers, and wildlife management stake-
more likely to overestimate risks, either holders. They argue that wildlife veteri-
due to lack of knowledge, situation novel- narians can play a key role in facilitating
ty, or perceived threats to children or pets. communication among the domestic ani-
The lack of other experience with wildlife mal, human health, and wildlife conserva-
can translate into lack of a priori wildlife tion communities. They also assert that
support, making negative interactions or wildlife veterinarians can be effective
perceived disease risks the foundation media spokespersons for wildlife conser-
from which opinions form. Further, unlike vation as a way to reach the public with
 BUTTKE ET AL.—PERSPECTIVE 5

balanced One Health messages. However, those that claim to address the most
domestic animal veterinarians have the pressing need; this need is often expressed
networks, and a much broader workforce in extreme terms (overstated or emotion-
and distribution to have a significant ally presented) to emphasize the urgency
impact on promoting balanced One of the work proposed. This can be extreme-
Health messages. ly effective for proposals directed at a small
Riley and Decker (in press) reviewed a review panel, but the language of proposals
recent case study of wildlife-disease risk is often repeated in subsequent presenta-
perception that found that people react to tions, papers, and reports picked up by the
a wildlife-associated disease based in part media. The stronger or more sensational
on their sense of self-efficacy and societal the language, the more likely it may be
efficacy. These traits develop at a local shared with large numbers of viewers,
level. They reflect how confident a person listeners, or readers of mass media. This
feels in his or her surroundings, including kind of indirect, collateral effect of our
confidence in the institutions that support professional communication often occurs
a sense of security in the face of a threat. with little individual accountability, yet it is
An agency’s capacity and competency to a real responsibility and carries potential
detect, respond to, and communicate for important consequences.
about a wildlife-associated disease con-
tribute significantly to a sense of societal How can One Health contribute to wildlife
conservation while wildlife-associated EIDs
efficacy—the public’s sense that govern- continue to increase?
ment and its partners can competently
manage a disease. Siemer et al. (2012) One Health is a concept that brings the
report on a national study of agency natural world and wildlife into the spot-
competencies that experts think are need- light and, it is hoped, positive attention for
ed to manage wildlife disease. Key factors wildlife’s well-being in its own right and
among them are coordination and collab- biodiversity preservation for both human
oration. One Health promotes both of health and conservation purposes. One
these, and communication is fundamental Health could bring various disciplines
to achieving these goals. together to more efficiently and effectively
Unbiased communication about wild- improve the health of multiple species.
life-associated disease by wildlife profes- However, how wildlife is framed in One
sionals to avoid amplification of risk or Health communication will make a huge
diminished social efficacy is more difficult difference in how wildlife—as victim or as
than it may seem. It takes discipline and perpetrator of disease—will be viewed by
vigilance to avoid reinforcing negative and the public.
frightening images of wildlife-associated Those embracing One Health need to
diseases among the public. Although consider how the message is communicat-
stakeholders are concerned about disease ed (Decker et al. 2011, 2012b). Some
effects on wildlife as well as humans scholars and practitioners in the wildlife
(Hanisch-Kirkbride et al. 2013), our pro- health fields believe that the One Health
fessional institutions are often biased concept holds promise for generating
toward the power of overstatement, to broader professional and public attention
the point that we have become condi- needed for wildlife health, to give wildlife
tioned to sensationalize communications a voice in the comprehensive ‘‘health’’
to generate attention (often in the media) conversation. This belief has merit for
and rewards (financial and other institu- wildlife conservation, if the potential
tional support) garnered. Grant writing unintended negative consequences are
provides an excellent example. The most carefully considered and addressed (Wild
competitive grant proposals are often et al. in press). One Health is an
6 JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2015

integrative idea—which makes it inher- conservation. Biodiversity, including wild-

ently complex and requires calculated life populations, has countless benefits to
public communications. It also makes human health and well-being beyond its
explicit the idea that wildlife health, and inherent value (Millennium Ecosystem
conversely, wildlife-associated disease, can Assessment 2005). Including positive mes-
affect people and companion animals that sages on ecosystem benefits of wildlife in
people hold dear. messages about public health risks from
Wild et al. (in press) and others (Decker wildlife would provide a broader perspec-
et al. 2010, 2011, 2012b) caution that the tive on the ways in which humans are
use of fear messages, commonly used to impacted by the species addressed.
motivate human health and safety behav-
Research needs
ior, needs to be replaced with a more
positive approach, if One Health is to Wildlife conservation should be inte-
improve both human and wildlife health. grated into One Health communications
If handled poorly, the fundamental One and considerations as soon as possible, but
Health message with respect to wildlife it must be done with full recognition that
has potential to activate fear and low more social science of wildlife conserva-
tolerance of health risks to self, significant tion is needed. Human dimensions re-
others, and pets. The potential for public search is needed to inform One Health
backlash against what is perceived as message development and delivery to
unhealthy or diseased wildlife is real and targeted segments of the public. Further-
needs to be dealt with through carefully more, stakeholder engagement processes
crafted messages. can improve both public understanding of
The veterinary and wildlife professions wildlife health risks and agencies’ under-
could engage in One Health strategically standing of public concerns. The multidi-
to help the risk-averse public better rectional flow of information created by
understand the ‘‘whys’’ and ‘‘hows’’ of public engagement can lead to informed
emerging zoonotic disease, including the input in wildlife disease management. In
beneficial aspects of a healthy ecosystem the absence of such research and engage-
and wildlife. In the highly competitive ment activities, caution should be taken by
media environment, using an interdisci- all fields of the One Health community
plinary One Health approach to couple not to turn the public away from valuing
various health professions’ efforts could wildlife presence (i.e., effectively devalu-
greatly improve appropriate media cover- ing wildlife conservation) due to generated
age. One Health addresses two issues fear of wildlife as zoonotic disease reser-
important for wildlife-associated disease voirs (Decker et al. 2010, 2011, 2012a, b).
risk perceptions—self-efficacy and societal The potential for this very real side effect
efficacy. Human, companion animal, wild- makes it even more important to break
life, and livestock health communities down the normal, cross-disciplinary com-
each address specific and different audi- munication barriers. Jack (2012) encour-
ences and can empower individuals and aged communication across jurisdictional
improve societal efficacy by acting as a and disciplinary boundaries and among
trusted source of health-related informa- the respective professional communities
tion. A joint, interdisciplinary effort to that have not historically regularly inter-
replace fear messages with factual and acted (i.e., human health professionals,
holistic information about disease, the livestock and companion animal veterinar-
protective benefits of biodiversity, and ians, wildlife veterinarians, and environ-
the ways to minimize risk associated with mental and wildlife scientists).
wildlife-associated disease could maintain Moreover, in the absence of specific
or improve societal support for wildlife human dimensions research on the topic,
 BUTTKE ET AL.—PERSPECTIVE 7

One Health professionals from all disci- 2008). If handled poorly, the incorpora-
plines should follow general communica- tion of wildlife in One Health could
tions guidance on achieving the credibility backfire for conservation, increase public
and trust necessary to effectively inform apprehension about wildlife living in
laypeople about wildlife-associated dis- proximity to humans or their pets, and
ease. This is especially challenging given cause diminished conservation support.
the scientific uncertainty often present in The wildlife profession needs to develop,
wildlife-associated disease. Consistency in test, and evaluate wildlife-associated dis-
balanced, informative messages about ease messages that increase the public’s
wildlife disease, especially in early stages knowledge and improve individuals’ per-
after detection, is important to help ceptions of self-efficacy and societal effi-
people understand the situation. Commu- cacy for mitigating disease risks without
nication coordination is needed to ensure eroding wildlife support or value. Risk
consistency and effectiveness. perception research indicates that wild-
Although some human dimensions re- life-associated disease tolerance can be
search on wildlife-associate disease has enhanced if individuals are confident
occurred over the last 10 yr (e.g., Hanisch- they can avoid or reduce exposure (self-
Kirkbride et al. 2013), much more is efficacy) and that societal institutions (e.g.,
needed to help managers better under- wildlife agencies, health departments,
stand who is affected by wildlife disease, medical profession, etc.) are managing
the nature and severity of stakeholders’ disease and are capable of aiding people
perceived risks, and impacts experienced and pets if disease affects them (Evensen
because of wildlife disease. Improving and Clarke 2012).
managers’ understanding of wildlife users These balanced, One Health messages
(hunters, trappers, viewers, photogra- must resonate with wildlife, human, and
phers), and others who come in contact domestic animal health professions. This is
with wildlife of their own volition, is of perhaps best achieved by collaboration of
interest. However, as wildlife and humans these allied health fields in message
increasingly coexist in urban, suburban, development and communication design
and exurban environments, members of efforts. Preparation of a position statement
the public with no special interest in about One Health communication may be
wildlife as objects of recreation or study a logical step toward avoiding the potential
are interacting more frequently with down side of the One Health initiative for
wildlife. The wildlife disease beliefs and wildlife conservation. This should be
attitudes of these people are perhaps in undertaken without delay, given the rate
greatest need of further exploration. of habitat destruction and new EIDs
anticipated.
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The One Health movement is intended
to improve the health of multiple species This work was supported by funding from
the National Park Service. We thank Kirsten
and the environment, and it has great
Leong, Charles Higgins, Kevin Castle, and
potential and promise in this regard. If Katherine McComas for insightful discussions
One Health is handled well with respect to and debate that contributed to the thesis
wildlife, it could be an important positive presented in this manuscript and thoughtful
conservation force. Natural resources and review. Views, statements, findings, conclu-
biodiversity have countless benefits for sions, recommendations, and data in this
report do not necessarily reflect views and
human health and reducing infectious policies of the National Park Service or US
disease spread (Millennium Ecosystem Department of the Interior. Mention of trade
Assessment 2005; Chivian and Bernstein names or commercial products does not
8 JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2015

constitute endorsement or recommendation Jack SW. 2012. One Health: More than just a catch
for use by the US government. phrase. Hum-Wildl Interact 6:5.
Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D,
LITERATURE CITED Gittleman JL, Daszak P. 2008. Global trends in
emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451:990–993.
Beck U. 1992. Risk society, towards a new moder-
Klinke A, Renn O. 2002. A new approach to risk
nity. Sage Publications, London, UK, 260 pp.
evaluation and management: Risk-based, pre-
Butler JS, Shanahan JE, Decker DJ. 2003. Public
caution-based, and discourse-based strategies.
attitudes toward wildlife are changing: A trend
analysis of New York residents. Wildl Soc Bull Risk Anal 22:1071–1094.
31:1027–1036. Kretser HE, Sullivan PJ, Knuth BA. 2008. Housing
Chivian E, Bernstein A, editors. 2008. Sustaining life: density as an indicator of spatial patterns of
How human health depends on biodiversity. Oxford reported human-wildlife interactions in northern
University Press, New York, New York, 542 pp. New York. Landscape Urban Plan 84:282–292.
Conover MR. 2001. Resolving human-wildlife con- Madden F. 2004. Creating coexistence between
flicts. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 418 pp. humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on
Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. 2000. local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict.
Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife— Hum Dimens Wildl 9:247–257.
Threats to biodiversity and human health. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems
Science 287:443–449. and human well-being: Current state and trends,
Decker DJ, Evensen DTN, Siemer WF, Leong KM, Vol. 1. World Resources Institute, Washington,
Riley SJ, Wild MA, Castle KT, Higgins CL. DC, http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.
2010. Understanding risk perceptions to en- 766.aspx.pdf. Accessed September 2014.
hance communication about human-wildlife Myers SS, Gaffikin L, Golden CD, Ostfeld RS, Redford
interactions and the impacts of zoonotic disease. KH, Ricketts TH, Turner WR, Osofsky SA. 2013.
J Inst Lab Anim Res 51:255–261. Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration. Proc
Decker DJ, Siemer WF, Wild MA, Castle KT, Wong Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:18753–18760.
D, Leong KM, Evensen DTN. 2011. Commu- Peterson MN, Mertig AG, Liu JG. 2006. Effects of
nicating about zoonotic disease: Strategic con- zoonotic disease attributes on public attitudes
siderations for wildlife professionals. Wildl Soc towards wildlife management. J Wildl Manage
Bull 35:112–119. 70:1746–1753.
Decker DJ, Riley SJ, Siemer WF. 2012a. Human Riley SJ, Decker DJ. In press. Human dimensions of
dimensions of wildlife management. Johns Hopkins wildlife health. In: Transactions of the 77th
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 304 pp. North American Wildlife & Natural Resources
Decker DJ, Siemer WF, Evensen DTN, Stedman Conference, Wildlife Management Institute,
RC, McComas KA, Wild MA, Castle KT, Leong Atlanta, Georgia, 12–17 January 2012.
KM. 2012b. Public perceptions of wildlife- Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS. 2001. Biodiversity and
associated disease: Risk communication matters. the dilution effect in disease ecology. Ecology
Hum-Wildl Interact 6:112–122. 82:609–619.
Deem SL, Karesh WB, Weisman W. 2001. Putting Shaw MR, Klausmeyer K, Cameron DR, Mackenzie J,
theory into practice: Wildlife health in conser- Roehrdanz P. 2012. Economic costs of achieving
vation. Conservation Biology 15:1224–1233.
current conservation goals in the future as climate
Evensen DT, Clarke CE. 2012. Efficacy information
changes. Conserv Biol 26:385–396.
in media coverage of infectious disease risks: An
Siemer WF, Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Riley SJ. 2012.
ill predicament? Sci Commun 34:392–418.
Agency traits that build capacity to manage
Friend M. 2012. Transformation through time: How
disease. Hum Dimens Wildl 17:376–388.
wildlife disease became a focus of conservation.
Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–
Wildl Prof 6:24–27.
285.
Giles RH. 1978. Wildlife management. W. H. Freeman
Press, San Francisco, California, 416 pp. Wild MA, Decker DJ, Higgins CL. In press.
Hanisch-Kirkbride SL, Riley SJ, Gore ML. 2013. Integrating One Health into wildlife conserva-
Wildlife disease and risk perception. J Wildl Dis tion: Building relationships and communicating
49:841–849. effectively. In: Transactions of the 77th North
Heberlein TA, Stedman RC. 2009. Socially amplified risk: American Wildlife & Natural Resources Confer-
Attitude and behavior change in response to CWD ence, Wildlife Management Institute, Atlanta,
in Wisconsin deer. Hum Dimens Wildl 14:326–340. Georgia, 12–17 January 2012.
Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. 2007. Public
reactions to global health threats and infectious Submitted for publication 7 January 2014.
diseases. Publ Opin Quart 71:671–692. Accepted 19 June 2014.