# Threatened or thriving? Q methodology reveals stakeholder discourses of bats in an insular context

Rachel Leong, Anne Atlan, Camille Lebarbenchon

► To cite this version:

Rachel Leong, Anne Atlan, Camille Lebarbenchon. Threatened or thriving? Q methodology reveals stakeholder discourses of bats in an insular context. Ecology and Society, 2025, 30 (4), pp.art20. 10.5751/ES-16334-300420. hal-05394992

HAL Id: hal-05394992

https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-05394992v1

Submitted on 23 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Research

# Threatened or thriving? Q methodology reveals stakeholder discourses of bats in an insular context

Rachel Leong<fnref n="1" /> ID, Anne Atlan² and Camille Lebarbenchon<fnref n="1" /> ID

**ABSTRACT.** Bats are the only indigenous mammals on Reunion Island, with one of the three species, *Mormopterus francoismoutoi*, being endemic, and another, *Pteropus niger*, endangered. The endemic bat is highly adapted to urban areas and coexists in proximity to humans, living in large colonies in rooftops of houses, schools, and churches, and also under bridges. These bats hold considerable importance for Reunion Island's natural heritage, but at the same time, they carry diseases and leave dejections that can cause olfactory discomfort and respiratory problems. As conservation and management measures hold profound implications on both human and bat populations, we need to foster a proper understanding of stakeholder perspectives and find common ground. We applied Q methodology to explore stakeholder discourses of bats on Reunion Island, focusing on aspects of conservation, management, and public health. Our combined quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed three principal discourses. The human-oriented discourse advocates public education and addressing myths and misconceptions to protect bats. The nature-oriented discourse prioritizes the protection of natural habitats to conserve bats. The public health and policy-oriented discourse seeks to adapt bat conservation and management policies to ensure public health safety. All stakeholders agreed that there is a lack of awareness among local media, which at times diffuses sensational and erroneous information, and that as well there is a need to integrate research output into public outreach efforts to garner interest in bats. These results can aid in contextualizing conservation actions and policies and could potentially provide sustainable management solutions to human-bat coexistence on Reunion Island.

**Key Words:** cohabitation; conservation; disease control; management; natural heritage; Reunion Island

## INTRODUCTION

Incorporating stakeholder perspectives is critical for effective conservation because underlying beliefs, priorities, and conflicts resulting from diverse stakeholder backgrounds ultimately shape conservation strategies and outcomes (Sterling et al. 2017). An understanding of these diverse perspectives will help bridge ideological divides and frame conservation goals that address misconceptions, while enabling decision making (Zabala et al. 2018). Stakeholder analysis also helps bring to light marginalized discourses in conservation dialogues and guide efforts to amplify these under-represented perspectives in decision making to enhance policy acceptance and improve the overall social and ecological outcome of conservation and management (Levesque et al. 2023). Conservation decisions and actions are influenced by different stakeholder views, values, and attitudes (Hemming et al. 2022) because conservationists increasingly realize that the delineation of effective conservation interventions largely depends on a robust understanding of the multidimensional inter-relations between people and wildlife (Bennett et al. 2017).

Urban human-bat coexistence requires mitigation of two key sources of conflicts: 1. sanitary issues, e.g., urine and feces, 2. and health hazards, e.g., potential spillover of bat-associated infectious agents. Urban bat colonies are commonly recognized as nuisance wildlife (Voigt et al. 2016) despite a low disease risk (Guth 2022). These colonies can be noisy and create guano deposits that can accumulate and become an olfactory nuisance (Debata 2021) and cause respiratory issues and allergies (de Perio et al. 2021). Fruit bat colonies may also have tendencies to feed on agricultural fruits grown for human consumption (Voigt et al.

2016). Bats are reservoirs of viruses with zoonotic potentials; although some of these diseases can be transmitted to humans directly (e.g., Lyssavirus, Marburg virus; Banyard et al. 2014), most bat-associated infectious diseases first infect livestock and domestic animals before emerging in humans (e.g., Nipah virus, Human Coronavirus 229E) as a result of habitat encroachment (Gonzalez and Banerjee 2022). Mitigating this risk is therefore an important challenge for both public health and bat conservation, especially because the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how perceived risks of bat-related infectious diseases can erode public support for their conservation (Rocha et al. 2021). The One Health approach provides an opportunity to address this situation with emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration and the inextricable nature of human and wildlife health and disease (WHO 2024). In the Anthropocene, with growing ambition to integrate One Health into conservation (Wijeskara 2023), it is crucial to consider human dimensions in assessing zoonotic spillover risk (Markotter et al. 2023) and in tackling urban coexistence conflicts (Pooley et al. 2021). An understanding of human dimensions therefore holds important implications for eventual conservation-related policy decisions (Bennett et al. 2017).

Islands often host disproportionately high biodiversity and critically endangered species compared to continental regions, making the insular context particularly important for conservation planning (Tershy et al. 2015). Reunion Island, located in a major biodiversity hotspot, hosts high levels of species endemism, unique functional traits, and specific evolutionary patterns that are critical to determine the fate of biodiversity (Kier

<footnote n="1">¹Université de La Réunion, Unité Mixte de Recherche Processus Infectieux en Milieu Insulaire Tropical (PIMIT), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Saint Denis de La Réunion, France, ²Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 6590 Espaces et Sociétés, Rennes, France</footnote>
et al. 2009). Furthermore, the island's socioecological systems are also strongly influenced by cultural ties to local biodiversity (Tershy et al. 2015). Reunion Island hosts three indigenous bat species: the endemic Reunion free-tailed bat (RFTB, *Mormopterus francoismoutoi*), the Mauritian tomb bat (*Taphozous mauritianus*), and the endangered Mauritian flying fox (*Pteropus niger*). The RFTB is the most abundant of the three, occupying natural caves and cliffs, but also a range of urban habitats (bridges, buildings, etc.; Aguillon et al. 2024), as is the case for other Molossid bats (e.g., Lopez-Baucells et al. 2017). The species can form massive maternity colonies of more than 40,000 individuals (Dietrich et al. 2015). Its proximity to humans has led to coexistence conflicts, particularly due to health concerns from guano accumulation and structural damage, exacerbated by legislation prohibiting colony disturbance (Augros et al. 2015, Lutton 2016, 2021). The *Pteropus niger* population is comparatively smaller, with approximately 200 individuals since the species' re-establishment in 2016 (Probst and Sanchez 2015), currently avoiding major conflict but potentially poised for future tensions similar to those seen in Mauritius, where the species has been subject to large-scale culling (Olival 2015). These island-dwelling bats hold high conservation importance due to their increased vulnerability as a result of ecological changes such as invasive species introduction and climate change, which hold critical implications for the delineation and success of conservation interventions (Conenna et al. 2017).

The objective of this study is to increase our understanding of shared perspectives, including divergent understandings and potential points of agreement, of bats in an insular context. We applied a Q methodology (QM) approach to elucidate stakeholders' perspectives of bats on Reunion Island, with the aim of guiding future bat conservation and management decisions. Q methodology has been used by various disciplines to explore and analyze subjective perspectives and shared values (Zabala et al. 2018). Its strength lies in using both qualitative and quantitative techniques to identify human subjectivities and opinions of these, and QM is increasingly used in the field of biodiversity and ecosystems conservation (e.g., tigers by Rastogi et al. 2013, mangroves by Vande Velde et al. 2019). Our study exemplifies the utility of QM for perception-based research in conservation, but also presents important arguments serving as a base for conservation and management recommendations for bats on small tropical islands.

# METHODS

## Study area

Reunion Island is a French Overseas Territory in the southwestern Indian Ocean. It is a small tropical island of 2512 km² with a population of approximately 885,700 inhabitants. Since the island's colonization in 1638, many natural habitats at low altitude have been converted to make way for urbanization and agriculture (Strasberg et al. 2005), but 40% of the island, mainly at high altitude, is still preserved. In addition to being a biodiversity hotspot, the island's national park, covering 42% of the island's surface area, has been labeled a UNESCO world heritage site.

The human population of the island is made up of Creoles of diverse geographical origins (e.g., Africa, Madagascar, Europe,

India, China), who have been present for several generations and still keep some of their spiritual and traditional practices to this day. Taking into account the land-use changes over the years, the island's bat population is now found in four main habitat types including semi-natural, urban areas, caves, and agricultural land.

## Study participants (P-set)

We started by including the major stakeholders of bat conservation on Reunion Island (public administration involved in environment and land-use planning, NGO focusing on bat conservation, etc.) and continued with snowball sampling to ensure the most purposive and diverse profiles were selected to represent the P-set. The P-set consists of 30 participants from 6 stakeholder groups including: research and education (n = 3), public administration (n = 6), public institution (n = 8), NGO (n = 5), environmental consultancy (n = 4), and private and semi-private organizations (n = 4; Appendix 1, Table A1.1). In line with the Q-methodology approach, the P-set is not intended to be statistically representative of the broader population. Instead, it is designed to encompass a strategically selected and heterogeneous group of participants, each reflecting distinct viewpoints or discourses pertinent to the study topic.

## Formation of statements (Q-set)

Before preparing the Q-set, we first prepared a concourse, i.e., a population of statements representing a range of viewpoints. We used information from three main sources: (1) interviews conducted with five bat stakeholders with diverse viewpoints; (2) information and discussions during round-table meetings and seminars conducted by local bat stakeholders; (3) bibliographic information such as scientific and gray literature. Scientific literature was obtained via Web of Science and Google Scholar using keywords (words in asterisk were searched in both singular and plural forms) such as bat*, perspective*, belief* management, conservation, conflict*, co-existence, cohabitation, interaction*, threat*, risk*, public health, Reunion Island, Indian Ocean, Southwest Indian Ocean, insular, and island*. We then regrouped the concourse statements (n = 87) into 7 themes, scrutinized and filtered down to a manageable set of 50 statements to represent the Q-set. The Q-sort language is French (Appendix 1, Table A1.2) and has been translated into English for this study (Table 1).

## Q-sort interviews

Before each interview, we reminded participants that the Q-sort statements referred to bats in general on Reunion Island, and they were to consider the broader bat community when interpreting and responding to each statement. We instructed each participant to score each Q-set statement according to an 11-point Likert scale, where -5 represented the statements participants completely disagreed with, 0 for neutrality, undecided, or the lack of opinion, and +5 for complete agreement (Appendix 1, Fig. A1.1). We administered all interviews in person and in French. We instructed participants to first regroup the statements into three categories: agree, disagree, or without opinion/undecided. We then asked participants to rank the statements according to their level of agreement or disagreement. We notified and encouraged participants to clarify any ambiguous statements or doubts in keywords throughout the sorting process. We gave participants time to rethink their arrangement of statements before confirming their Q-sort. We concluded interviews with a post-
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Statements (S) and their respective z-scores (z-sc) and ranks (r) for each of the three respective identified factors. Asterisks after z-scores represent distinguishing statements at *p* < 0.01. Asterisks after statements represent consensus statements at *p* < 0.01.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Statements (S)</th><th colspan="2">Factor 1</th><th colspan="2">Factor 2</th><th colspan="2">Factor 3</th></tr><tr><th>z-sc</th><th>r</th><th>z-sc</th><th>r</th><th>z-sc</th><th>r</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1 The notion of ecosystem services is problematic for bat conservation because it is an anthropocentric vision.</td><td>-0.436</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.218</td><td>1</td><td>-0.497</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>2 Bats were present on Reunion Island before man, so they have every right to their place on the island.</td><td>1.01*</td><td>2</td><td>2.14</td><td>5</td><td>1.85</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>3 The presence of bats on Reunion Island represents an excellent opportunity to educate our children about nature.</td><td>1.20</td><td>3</td><td>1.25</td><td>3</td><td>1.67</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>4 Quantifying and assessing the ecosystem services provided by bats should be at the heart of the conservation and management strategy for Reunion Island.</td><td>0.850</td><td>2</td><td>-0.273</td><td>-1</td><td>0.586</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>5 Bats are beneficial to the island's agricultural economy because they feed on crop pests.</td><td>-0.376*</td><td>-1</td><td>0.417</td><td>1</td><td>0.337</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>6 Because bats are the only mammals indigenous to Reunion Island, they should be regarded as emblems of the island's biodiversity.</td><td>0.472</td><td>1</td><td>1.09</td><td>2</td><td>0.887</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>7 The population has lost its sensitivity to nature and the environment, leading to conflicts with bats.</td><td>-0.060</td><td>0</td><td>0.252</td><td>0</td><td>-0.004</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>8 Cohabitation can be considered as a connection between man and his environment, and should therefore not be seen as a problem.</td><td>0.513</td><td>1</td><td>0.732</td><td>2</td><td>-1.88*</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr><td>9 Rather than asking whether there is a risk for humans to coexist with bats, we should be asking what the risks are for bats to be in such close contact with the human population.</td><td>-0.124</td><td>0</td><td>0.256</td><td>1</td><td>-0.465</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>10 Urbanization has created numerous artificial habitats (bridges, buildings, etc.) for the Reunion Island free-tailed bat (the island's only endemic bat species), which has encouraged its population to grow and (urbanization) is therefore positive.</td><td>0.336</td><td>1</td><td>-0.847</td><td>-2</td><td>-0.787</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>11 Having more green spaces around homes (parks, gardens, etc.) encourages more positive interactions between humans and wildlife, which in turn can be positive for bat conservation.</td><td>0.246</td><td>0</td><td>1.57*</td><td>4</td><td>0.434</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>12 It is the way we interact with bats rather than their presence in our environment that poses a problem.</td><td>-0.019</td><td>0</td><td>1.14*</td><td>3</td><td>0.458</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>13 Bats are a threat to the island's agricultural economy because some species feed in agricultural land.</td><td>-0.44*</td><td>-1</td><td>-2.34</td><td>-4</td><td>-1.86</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>14 The population of Reunion Island is not aware of the public health issues associated with bats because there are none.</td><td>-0.868</td><td>-2</td><td>0.197</td><td>0</td><td>-0.624</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>15 The island's bats pose no health risk to the population as long as there is no direct interaction.</td><td>-1.09*</td><td>-3</td><td>0.248</td><td>0</td><td>-0.309</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>16 It is more positive than negative that the COVID-19 pandemic has reminded the public that bats carry diseases.</td><td>-1.57*</td><td>-3</td><td>-0.894</td><td>-2</td><td>-0.637</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>17 There have been no known cases of bat-related zoonotic diseases on Reunion Island, therefore bats are not considered a health risk.</td><td>-1.04*</td><td>-2</td><td>0.429*</td><td>1</td><td>-1.78*</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>18 In the event of an epidemic involving bats, the health and safety of the people of Reunion Island must take priority over the conservation and protection of bats.</td><td>-0.190</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.468</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.782</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>19 The government has not taken sufficient measures to prepare the population for possible epidemics caused by zoonotic diseases.</td><td>0.0037</td><td>0</td><td>-0.477</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.254</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>20 Bats have no place in a One Health approach because they do not present a health risk.</td><td>-1.38</td><td>-3</td><td>-1.14</td><td>-3</td><td>-0.829</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>21 Integrating bats into a One Health approach would be beneficial for their conservation and management.</td><td>0.233</td><td>0</td><td>0.446</td><td>1</td><td>0.345</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>22 Raising awareness among the people of Reunion Island has helped to dispel negative perceptions of bats and should be continued.</td><td>0.640*</td><td>1</td><td>-0.598*</td><td>-2</td><td>-0.037</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>23 The public is more receptive to the ecosystem services provided by bats, so these should be used to raise awareness.</td><td>0.651</td><td>1</td><td>-0.626*</td><td>-2</td><td>0.782</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>24 The collective public perception of bats, sharks, and rodents has long had a bad image, leading us to associate them with fear, disgust, or disease.</td><td>1.75*</td><td>4</td><td>0.671</td><td>1</td><td>0.623</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>25 Education on local biodiversity and nature-related subjects should be incorporated into the curriculum from a very early age.</td><td>2.14</td><td>5</td><td>1.31</td><td>3</td><td>1.67</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>26 Misconceptions and myths about bats are largely due to insufficient knowledge and communication about this animal.</td><td>1.06</td><td>2</td><td>1.27</td><td>3</td><td>1.23</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>27 We should be careful about how we communicate knowledge about bats to avoid unjustified fears.</td><td>0.478</td><td>1</td><td>0.409</td><td>1</td><td>0.741</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>28 The COVID-19 pandemic did not change perceptions about bats because the island's inhabitants already held negative perceptions beforehand.</td><td>-0.852*</td><td>-2</td><td>0.116</td><td>0</td><td>-0.269</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>29 Research should be accompanied by public awareness raising because it helps to get people interested in bats.</td><td>1.45</td><td>4</td><td>1.10</td><td>2</td><td>1.47</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>30 A steering body should be set up to harmonize decisions on the conservation and management of bats.</td><td>0.548*</td><td>1</td><td>-0.408</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.075</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>31 Relocating bat colonies is a very short-term solution because it simply moves the problem to another location.</td><td>-0.815</td><td>-1</td><td>0.521*</td><td>1</td><td>-1.19</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>32 A standardized protocol on how to manage bat colonies in buildings is not useful because each case is assessed individually.</td><td>-1.06*</td><td>-2</td><td>-0.588</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.402</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>33 Preserving natural areas is not the priority when it comes to protecting the Reunion Island free-tailed bats because most of its colonies are in urban areas.</td><td>-1.22</td><td>-3</td><td>-1.88*</td><td>-4</td><td>-0.766</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>34 The management of bats on Reunion Island requires a bottom-up approach to ensure coordination between the stakeholders involved.</td><td>0.325</td><td>1</td><td>0.427</td><td>1</td><td>1.63*</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>35 The effectiveness of bat boxes is limited by their small size and cost, as well as by the lack of monitoring.</td><td>-0.366</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.392</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.65</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>36 Reunion Island offers ecotourism opportunities linked to bats, which should be exploited to promote their conservation.</td><td>-0.134</td><td>0</td><td>-0.140</td><td>0</td><td>-0.005</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>37 More use should be made of guano to fertilize crops and gardens, thereby promoting the conservation of bats.</td><td>0.0345</td><td>0</td><td>-0.167</td><td>-1</td><td>0.412</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

(con'd)
<table><tr><td>38</td><td>The lack of knowledge of the protection status of bats on the island poses a risk to their conservation.</td><td>1.17</td><td>3</td><td>0.918</td><td>2</td><td>-0.323</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>The knowledge gained from scientific research on Reunion's bats should be shared openly so that people appreciate them and support their conservation.</td><td>1.36</td><td>3</td><td>0.242</td><td>0</td><td>1.49</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>The media on Reunion Island are well informed and are unlikely to disseminate false or misleading information about bats.</td><td>-2.14*</td><td>.5</td><td>-1.48</td><td>-3</td><td>-1.59</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>The destruction of natural areas on Reunion Island has a major impact on bats and must be reduced as a matter of urgency to protect them.</td><td>1.25</td><td>3</td><td>1.55</td><td>4</td><td>-0.671*</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>The stakeholders are in competition with each other and are implementing actions without any communication between them, impeding the conservation and sustainable management of bats.</td><td>0.126</td><td>0</td><td>-0.145</td><td>0</td><td>0.763*</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>The efficiency and cost-effectiveness of wind turbines as a source of energy on Reunion are too great to warrant any consideration of the potential dangers they represent for bats.</td><td>-1.82</td><td>-4</td><td>-1.65</td><td>-3</td><td>-0.846*</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Aerial power lines are a threat to bats on Reunion and require more attention and better management.</td><td>0.120</td><td>0</td><td>-0.0933</td><td>0</td><td>0.310</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>We should consider using participative science to assess the effectiveness of bat boxes.</td><td>1.05</td><td>2</td><td>0.0746</td><td>0</td><td>1.20</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>The bats of Reunion Island are threatened by the destruction of their habitat and the reduction of natural areas, which is why they are protected by a European directive and by the national environmental code.</td><td>1.15</td><td>2</td><td>0.727</td><td>2</td><td>-0.129</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>The fact that bat colonies are still being relocated proves that the regulations on bat protection are not strict enough.</td><td>-0.521</td><td>-1</td><td>-0.105</td><td>0</td><td>-1.62*</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>The current legal protection for bats is sufficient to ensure their long-term preservation on Reunion Island.</td><td>-0.928</td><td>-2</td><td>-0.811</td><td>-2</td><td>1.50*</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Bats on Reunion Island are generally very well protected and are not endangered, so we should be concentrating our efforts on conserving other species that are genuinely endangered.</td><td>-1.96</td><td>-4</td><td>-2.40</td><td>-5</td><td>-0.093</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>The law protecting bats needs to be reviewed and take more preventive account of public health and safety, especially since the covid-19 pandemic.</td><td>-0.783</td><td>-1</td><td>-1.36</td><td>-3</td><td>-0.999</td><td>-3</td></tr></table>

sorting interview to allow participants to express and explain their sorting choices, placing emphasis on the salient statements (-5 and +5).

## Data analysis

We input all Q-sort data into Qmethod, an online analysis software (Lutfallah and Buchanan 2019). We first generated a correlation matrix using Pearson coefficient to compare similarities between Q-sorts. We then used centroid factor analysis to group similar Q-sorts to reduce the number of discourses. We applied Humphrey's rule of extraction and visualized the scree plot of eigenvalues to determine extraction of three factors (eigenvalues of 10.4, 1.73, 1.13, respectively). We next used varimax rotation to rotate the extracted factors to ensure that each factor group captured a maximum amount of the study variance explained (Zabala et al. 2018). We ensured a minimum of two significant loading Q-sorts per factor ($p < 0.01$; significant factor loading threshold value = $2.58 \times [1 \sqrt{no. of items in Q-set}] = 0.37$). Factor loadings represent the strength of association between each Q-sort and each extracted factor, so Q-sorts that load significantly on a given factor share a closely related sorting pattern.

## Factor interpretation

We developed each discourse narrative by scrutinizing the composite Q-sorts (Appendix 1, Fig. A1.1), interpreting z-scores, and analyzing post-sorting interviews (Zabala et al. 2018). We also considered salient statements, especially those identified as distinguishing or consensus statements between factors.

## RESULTS

The three significant discourses identified from the rotated factors collectively explained 44.4% of the total variance. Each discourse was described according to three main themes: (1) standpoint, i.e., main perspectives; (2) setback, i.e., main issues, and (3) strategy, i.e., recommended actions, to elucidate encompassed viewpoints. Q statements and associated ranks are bracketed such that “($S2: +5$)” represents statement 2 and a rank of +5 (Table 1).

## Discourse descriptions

### Discourse 1 (D1), human-oriented discourse

> We need to prioritize public outreach and education to address long-standing myths and misconceptions.

Discourse 1 explains 35% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 10.4), represented by 10 participants from 5 stakeholder groups (Table 2).

1. Standpoint: This discourse recognizes the important influence of public perceptions of bats on conservation (S29: +4; S25: +5; S24: +4) and the need to focus conservation efforts on public outreach and education.

2. Setback: The D1 supporters highlight two reasons for the importance of public outreach on Reunion Island. First, given the influence of COVID-19 on perceptions of bats among the population (S28: -2), D1 supporters believe it to be detrimental how the pandemic has further reiterated that bats are carriers of diseases (S16: -3). Second, long-standing myths and misconceptions of bats, sharks, and rodents continue to persist among locals who commonly associate these less-charismatic species with fear, disgust, or disease (S24: +4). Additionally, D1 supporters point out how local media tend to disseminate false and misleading information about bats (S40: -5), which can exacerbate these misunderstandings.

3. Strategy: The D1's strategy focuses on two main axes: public outreach and management of bat colonies. First, research needs to be publicly accessible and accompany public awareness-raising efforts to promote greater interest in bats (S29: +4), especially for local species that represent the island's natural heritage. The D1 supporters recognize that open research poses a risk for misinterpretation and stress that public outreach should closely accompany the research. They believe careful communication is key, and that research should fuel society's learning. To address misunderstandings, education on local biodiversity and nature should be incorporated into the curriculum at an early age (S25: +5)
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Discourses by key statements and stakeholders' characteristics.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Discourse</th><th rowspan="2">Key statements</th><th colspan="3">Stakeholder characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Q-sort</th><th>Sector</th><th>Field/Domain</th><th>Organization/Institution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">1. Human-oriented</td><td rowspan="10">24, 2, 22, 30,<br>10, 5, 13, 28,<br>17, 32, 15, 16,<br>40</td><td>28</td><td>Private or semi-private<br>organisation</td><td>Energy</td><td>Total Energies</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Private or semi-private<br>organisation</td><td>Pest control</td><td>Rentokil</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Public institution</td><td>Natural heritage<br>preservation</td><td>Parc National de La Réunion</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Public institution</td><td>Nature protection</td><td>Parc National de La Réunion</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Public institution</td><td>Energy</td><td>Électricité de France (EDF)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Public institution</td><td>Natural heritage<br>preservation</td><td>Musée Naturelle de La Réunion</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Public administration</td><td>Public health</td><td>Agence Régionale de Santé (ARS)</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>NGO</td><td>Biodiversity conservation</td><td>Fédération de chasse</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>NGO</td><td>Ornithological conservation</td><td>Société d'Etudes Ornithologiques de la Réunion<br>(SEOR)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>NGO</td><td>Chiroptera conservation</td><td>Groupe Chiroptères Océan Indien (GCOI)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">2. Nature-oriented</td><td rowspan="7">11, 12, 31, 17,<br>22, 23, 33</td><td>5</td><td>NGO</td><td>Reptile conservation</td><td>Nature Océan Indien (NOI)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>NGO</td><td>Chiroptera conservation</td><td>Groupe Chiroptères Océan Indien (GCOI)</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Research and education</td><td>Occupational health and<br>safety</td><td>Académie de La Réunion</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Research and education</td><td>Academia</td><td>Université de La Réunion</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Public administration</td><td>Land, environment, and<br>forestry</td><td>Direction de l'Alimentation, de l'Agriculture et de<br>la Forêt de La Réunion (DAAF)</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Public institution</td><td>Natural heritage<br>preservation</td><td>Parc National de La Réunion</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Public administration</td><td>Ecological transition</td><td>Région Réunion</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">3. Public health and<br>policy-oriented</td><td rowspan="7">34, 48, 42, 41,<br>43, 47, 17, 8</td><td>18</td><td>Private or semi-private<br>organisation</td><td>Pest control</td><td>BHL</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Public institution</td><td>Agriculture</td><td>Chambre d'agriculture</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Environmental consultancy</td><td>Biodiversity</td><td>Biotope</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Environmental consultancy</td><td>Biodiversity</td><td>Cynorkis</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Public institution</td><td>Nature protection</td><td>Parc National de La Réunion</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Public administration</td><td>Engineering</td><td>Région Réunion (Direction de l'Exploitation et de<br>l'Entretien de la Route)</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Public administration</td><td>Natural land area<br>preservation</td><td>Direction de l'Environnement, de l'Aménagement<br>et du Logement (DEAL)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>30</td><td>Private or semi-private<br>organisation</td><td>Urban development</td><td>Société Immobilière du Département de la<br>Réunion (SIDR)</td></tr></tbody></table>

because children are most impressionable and can help transfer knowledge to their parents. Rather than trying to change the behavior of animals, they recommend working on changing mindsets of the population toward bats. They add that public education should still be “accessible and address all age groups”, with education evolving rather than diminishing with age. Second, to improve the management of bat colonies, a steering committee needs to be set up to coordinate decision making among relevant stakeholders (S30: +1). A standardized protocol on how to manage bat colonies in buildings could prove useful (S32: -2), regardless of certain cases needing to be handled individually because this provides a baseline to fall back on and adapt from. Discourse 1 supporters point out how stakeholders should look to complement rather than to compete, suggesting that coordination will bring more weight to their actions.

### Discourse 2 (D2): nature-oriented discourse

We need to prioritize the protection of natural habitats to conserve bats.

Discourse 2 explains 6% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.73), represented by nine participants from four stakeholder groups (Table 2).

1. Standpoint: The D2 supporters adopt an ecocentric viewpoint in which man needs to integrate with nature. They emphasize the importance of natural habitats as roosting sites for some bat species and feeding sites for others, and therefore support the protection of nature and its resulting habitats and biodiversity. Bats do not pose a sanitary threat on Reunion Island, be it health (S17: +1) or economy related (S13: -4), but are rather threatened by habitat degradation (S41: 4), negative human-bat interactions (S12: +3), and improper management of colonies (S31: +1). Discourse 2 supporters believe that bats have the legitimate right to be present on the island because they arrived long before man (S2: +5).

2. Setback: The D2 supporters feel that raising public awareness has not aided in dispelling negative perceptions of bats among locals (S22: -2). Bats of Reunion Island have suffered greatly from the destruction of natural areas (S41: +4), demonstrating that they are not sufficiently protected (S49: -5). Discourse 2 supporters are not convinced of the public's ability to understand the ecosystem services of bats, nor are they convinced of the public's receptiveness toward bats, and therefore they do not see the effectiveness of promoting this to support bat conservation (S23: -2). They argue that ecosystem services are not
necessarily anthropocentric because these services also sustain nature's equilibrium and intrinsic ecological functions. They acknowledge that the legislation may be well-adapted to protect bats, but criticize how it does not protect their habitats.

3. **Strategy:** The D2 supporters feel that Reunion Island's bats do not necessarily pose a health risk because there has been no known case of a bat-related zoonotic disease on the island (S17: +1). However, they are undecided if the absence of direct human-bat interaction necessarily eliminates all health risks (S15: 0). They believe that the problem lies in the way the population interacts with bats rather than their immediate presence in the environment (S12: +3). Rather than weighing the importance of man against bats, they stress the need to think about coexistence, and that a sanitary risk does not justify considering who deserves to live. Rather than focusing on public outreach and perceptions, preserving natural areas should instead be the urgent priority (S41: +4), not only to protect local bat colonies (S33: -4), but also to encourage more positive interactions between the population and surrounding wildlife (S11: +4).

*Discourse 3 (D3): public health and policy-oriented discourse*
*We need to adapt conservation and management policies*
*to ensure public health safety.*

Discourse 3, interpreted from factor 3, explains 3% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.13). Six participants from four stakeholder groups represent this factor (Table 2).

1. **Standpoint:** Although D3 supporters do not outrightly reject the presence of bats on Reunion Island (S2: +5; S3: +4; S13: -4), they highlight the need to rethink current management efforts, especially those related to cohabitation (S8: -5; S47: -3) and stakeholder cooperation (S34: +3; S42: +2), with the aim of reducing public health risk (S17: -4).

2. **Setback:** The D3 supporters highlight how current management efforts are very directive with one stakeholder making most or all the decisions. Rather than adapting to the reality of the conflict faced first-hand by the population, the governing body simply imposes strict protocols. Discourse 3 supporters highlight the long administrative process related to these protocols, while the population in conflict with bat colonies continues to suffer during the wait, some eventually resorting to their own means of expelling these colonies. They worry about how competing interests between stakeholders could hinder conservation efforts (S42: +2), signalling the "implementation of uncoordinated actions" and the "on-going strive for acquiring and retaining information" to be counterproductive.

3. **Strategy:** The D3 supporters disagree that relocating bat colonies proves that regulations on bat protection are not strict enough (S47: -3), but instead feel that current legal protection is sufficient (S48: +3) or even "too strict." One participant mentioned the difficulty of explaining the need to coexist with bats to a population that does not recognize

the importance of bats, adding also that there should not be an obligation to coexist with bats at all cost. They suggest a bottom-up approach to increase coordinated efforts among stakeholders (S34: +3), encouraging professionals "in the field," whose day-to-day lives or activities involve interactions with bats, to regularly make their voices heard and for decision makers to put themselves in the shoes of those facing the problem directly. This discourse therefore rejects the feasibility of coexistence, especially with the RFTB colonies (S8: -5), calling attention to the toxicity of guano deposits that have caused allergies, respiratory issues, and the abandonment of rooms. They encourage management policies and the law protecting bats to "take stronger consideration of public health and safety."

**Consensus among discourses**

The first topic of consensus concerned the importance of public awareness. Stakeholders collectively acknowledged the influential role of local media, noting that it serves as a primary source of information. They also raised concerns about the media's tendency to sensationalize information, potentially distorting public understanding of environmental issues. Stakeholders were unsure if the population has become desensitized to nature and how this could lead to conflicts with bats. However, they agreed that the presence of biodiversity such as bats represents valuable educational opportunities and encouraged school curriculums to integrate biodiversity topics to foster ecological awareness from an early age.

The second topic of consensus revolved around the ecosystem services of bats. None of the stakeholders viewed the notion of ecosystem services as inherently problematic for bat conservation, despite its anthropocentric framing. Stakeholders highlighted that Reunion Island bats provide ecosystem services to maintain ecological balance, irrespective of human benefit. The stakeholders were unsure about the effectiveness of leveraging provisioning ecosystem services such as guano collection or of cultural ecosystem services such as ecotourism to promote bat conservation. They expressed scepticism about whether these services would resonate with the local population, suggesting that these services may not be perceived as valuable or relevant by the public.

The third topic of consensus involved management issues, especially regarding the urban bat colonies. All stakeholders expressed uncertainty about the effectiveness of bat boxes to relocate bat colonies, citing gaps in knowledge regarding the behavioral and ecological needs of the bats. Instead, they recommended an accessible, baseline, and comprehensive protocol to manage bat colonies in conflict with human populations, as well as a bottom-up approach seeking to use the input of those with relevant knowledge (e.g., professionals working directly with bats), rather than externally imposed decisions.

**Discourse comparisons**

The public health and policy-oriented discourse, D3, stands out significantly from the human-oriented discourse, D1, when public health is in question (Fig. 1). Unlike D3, D1 does not outrightly reject the possibility of human-bat coexistence on Reunion Island (Fig. 1), but believes that communication and awareness raising
**Fig. 1.** Contrasting viewpoints between D1, human-oriented discourse and D3, public health and policy-oriented discourse. Only the statements in which the discourses have expressed an opinion (i.e., +5, +4, +3, +2, +1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5) have been included.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

are key. Other notable areas of disagreement between D1 and D3 are with regard to the legal protection of bats and the lack of knowledge of their protection status (Fig. 1). Discourse 1 believes that the population lacks knowledge on the legal protection status of bats, and this ultimately threatens bat conservation. On the other hand, D3 argues that regardless of this knowledge, or lack of it, the population is susceptible to take matters into its own hands. The greatest consensus between D1 and D3 lies in the human aspects, with both discourses agreeing on the need to educate and change perceptions through continuous and careful communication of open research (Fig. 1).

The most obvious contrast between D1 and D2 lies in the fact that to better conserve and manage bats on Reunion Island, D1 prioritizes working on changing the mindsets of the population at hand, while D2 disagrees on the effectiveness of this (Fig. 2). Discourse 1 also believes that bats pose a health risk, whereas D2 is in disagreement (Fig. 2). The two discourses are in agreement that bats are threatened by habitat destruction, and that bats require more legal protection (Fig. 2) or stricter application of the law. Most importantly, D1 and D2 agree with the opportunity bats provide to educate children about biodiversity (Fig. 2). Discourse 2 and D3 share important contrasting views regarding aspects of public health, nature, and the human population (Fig. 3). First, D2 feels strongly about the impact of the destruction of natural spaces for bats, while D3 disagrees with the urgency of this issue for bat conservation (Fig. 3). Unlike D2, D3 is keen on bat ecosystem services, seeing only benefits to promoting this because of its usefulness to support bat conservation (Fig. 3). However, D3 highlights the sanitary risk present with human-bat coexistence, and therefore rejects the idea of ecosystem services, whereas D2 recognizes it as a form of connection with nature (Fig. 3). Despite these contrasting views, the two discourses are strongly in agreement that bats have the legitimate right to be present on the island, and they represent biodiversity on the island (Fig. 3). They also cohesively point out the lack of awareness by the local media and collectively agree that the island's bats pose no threat whatsoever to the agricultural economy (Fig. 3).

## DISCUSSION

Q methodology has mapped three distinct stakeholder discourses involving the bats of Reunion Island, confirming the diverse views and values across a wide range of organizations. The areas of consensus among stakeholders reflect shared objectives and can determine priorities for decision making. Scrutiny of the discourse comparisons is important to understand the shared and contrasting priorities according to stakeholder profiles and can also help identify subtleties in the conservation framings.

### Diverging viewpoints

#### Discourse 1

This discourse stresses the need to dispel long-standing myths and misunderstandings about bats to improve perceptions. Historically, bats have been negatively associated with witchcraft (Musila et al. 2018) and vampires (Dodd 2019). However, they can also hold positive symbolic value in some cultures (e.g., luck and prosperity in Chinese tradition; Low et al. 2021) and contribute to shaping community identities (Umar et al. 2024). Public education is vital to deconstruct these entrenched narratives and should be tailored to engage audiences of all ages. Discourse 1 supporters see the importance of incorporating biodiversity and nature-related subjects into formal education from an early age because children are especially receptive during formative years. Research suggests that positive childhood nature experiences significantly influence pro-wildlife attitudes and willingness to coexist with wildlife in adulthood (Ngo et al. 2019). Schools can look to incorporate urban environmental education through the promotion of action-based, experiential learning via direct wildlife experiences, which has been shown to enhance children's awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward local biodiversity (White et al. 2018).

#### Discourse 2

Discourse 2, the ecocentric or biospheric discourse, sees no need to justify the presence of bats. Bats are essential to proper ecosystem functioning because they provide multiple ecosystem services including insect pest consumption, grain dispersal, and
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Contrasting viewpoints between D1, human-oriented discourse, and D2, nature-oriented discourse. Only the statements in which the discourses have expressed an opinion (i.e., +5, +4, +3, +2, +1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5) have been included.</figcaption></figure>

pollination (Russo et al. 2022). The RFTB feed on insect vectors of human diseases (e.g., dengue and chikungunya) or crop pest (M. Dietrich, D. A. Wilkinson, G. Le Minter, M. Turpin, M. Galan, N. Charbonnel, G. Dupuy, N. Habchi-Hanriot, B. Reynaud, H. Delatte, and C. Lebarbenchon, *unpublished manuscript*). Reunion Island bats are an important part of the island's natural heritage, especially because the RFTB is the island's only endemic mammal (Goodman et al. 2008). This is also the only discourse that does not acknowledge sanitary risks related to the island's bats, but instead brings to light possible risks these bats face as a result of urbanization. In general, island bat populations are increasingly threatened by anthropogenic activities, and global conservation threats of forest loss, agricultural expansion, disturbance, and extinction do continue to place bats at a high rate of endangerment (Frick et al. 2019).

In D2, human-bat coexistence is seen as a way to foster a deeper connection between people and nature. Interacting with nature, whether indirectly or intentionally, is associated with improvements in mental health and status (Stott et al. 2024). This is especially important for the population on Reunion Island, who have reportedly strong connections with nature (Atlan et al. 2021). An increase in bat populations in urban areas can indicate that some species have successfully adapted to human-altered landscapes (Russo and Ancillotto 2015), thereby creating more opportunities for such interactions. This integration of wildlife into urban spaces is crucial not only for bats but for biodiversity in general, contributing to urban greening efforts and the vision of a nature-integrated community (Basak et al. 2022). However, having more green spaces does not guarantee more positive interactions with nature and biodiversity, or stronger support for conservation. These green spaces need to be thoughtfully designed and accompanied by proper public outreach to encourage meaningful, positive encounters with wildlife (Gong et al. 2024).

### *Discourse 3*

This discourse has stronger ideas regarding public health safety related to human-bat cohabitation. The endemic RFTB harbors a range of viruses and bacteria (e.g., astrovirus, Joffrin et al. 2021;

paramyxovirus and leptospirosis, Dietrich et al. 2015). Shared building use can lead to prolonged, frequent, and sometimes intense interactions between bats and humans and other synanthropic species, in turn increasing exposure opportunities that can lead to pathogen spillover (Jackson et al. 2024).

The three discourses demonstrate the plurality of relationships with nature that coexists on the island. Discourse 1, with the most variance, opposes the rationality of conceptual approaches to the subjectivity of spiritual approaches and myths, following the polarity described in Atlan et al. 2021. Discourse 2, strongly defending the bats, is a pragmatic one, with arguments from biology and ecology backed by various stakeholders. Discourse 3 is centred on human health, possibly explained by the important position occupied by nature conservation in the public sphere. The three stakeholder discourses align with patterns observed in previous research on human-wildlife interactions, highlighting the complex and often competing perspectives that shape conservation outcomes. Consistent with studies on large carnivores and urban wildlife (e.g., Redpath et al. 2013, Crowley et al. 2017), our findings reveal a spectrum of views ranging from human-centred concerns regarding public health and risk management, to nature-oriented perspectives prioritizing habitat protection and species conservation. The prominence of public education and myth dispelling in our human-oriented discourse reflects the well-documented role of environmental education in fostering positive attitudes toward wildlife (White et al. 2018). Unlike some critiques of the ecosystem services framework as overly anthropocentric (Raymond et al. 2014), stakeholders in this study generally accepted ecosystem services as a useful concept, albeit with reservations about their direct relevance to local communities. Furthermore, the shared concern over media sensationalism and the communication gap between scientific research and public understanding mirrors challenges identified in the literature, emphasizing the need for effective knowledge translation and stakeholder engagement to build trust and support for conservation (Pooley et al. 2017).
**Fig. 3.** Contrasting viewpoints between D2, nature-oriented discourse, and D3, public health and policy-oriented discourse. Only the statements in which the discourses have expressed an opinion (i.e., +5, +4, +3, +2, +1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5) have been included.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## Consensus viewpoints

### Public awareness and open research

Stakeholders have consistently emphasized the need for more comprehensible research results to support public outreach programs and enhance societal knowledge about bats. Persistent myths and misconceptions about bats among the local population may stem from a “knowledge-action gap” or the disconnect between research findings and their practical application, which undermines effective bat conservation and management on Reunion Island. Additionally, research evidence, where present, is often published in academic journals, limiting their accessibility to the population due to barriers of time, language, and scientific literacy (Walsh et al. 2019). When information is available, it may not always align with needs of practitioners (Matzek et al. 2014), who frequently encounter challenges in applying scientific evidence to real-world decision-making contexts (Nguyen et al. 2017).

Public outreach campaigns are designed to increase knowledge and promote behavioral change thereby increasing support for conservation efforts and ultimately delivering tangible benefits for native biodiversity (Olszańska et al. 2016). However, the efficacy of these outreach efforts is poorly understood and rarely assessed (Wallen and Kyle 2018). Evaluating the efficacy of outreach campaigns has been shown to successfully help in the management of invasive species (Haley et al. 2023), indicating similar potential for enhancing bat conservation. Future local awareness campaigns can include rigorous assessments such as before-after control-impact designs that measure changes in knowledge and behavior of target audiences and relevant biological outcomes.

### Ecosystem Services

Although provisioning ecosystem services such as excavating bat guano for fertilizer (e.g., Rahman et al. 2023) and cultural ecosystem services such as eco-tourism (e.g., Pennisi et al. 2004) have potential on Reunion Island, these are currently underdeveloped or unexploited. Stakeholders point out that these categories of ecosystem services do not strongly resonate with the population and may therefore have limited impact in fostering

support for bat conservation. Furthermore, promoting these ecosystem service types could inadvertently increase human-bat interactions, heightening the risk of disturbance, particularly to cave-roosting species during reproductive periods (Furey et al. 2018). Reducing human disturbance during bat breeding season could be a valuable public health strategy, especially on Reunion Island where high levels of coronavirus circulation have been detected in juvenile bats (up to 75% of bats shedding viruses; Hoarau et al. 2023). Should bat-related ecotourism be developed, it must prioritize the safety of both bats and humans, and follow successful best-practice models such as the structured bat emergence viewings in Austin, Texas (Pennisi et al. 2004). If responsibly implemented, bat ecotourism could not only generate economic profits, but also raise public interest and subsequent support for bat conservation.

### Management issues

Human-wildlife coexistence is defined as a sustainable and dynamic state in which humans and wildlife co-adapt to sharing landscapes where human-wildlife interactions are effectively managed to ensure wildlife persists within tolerable risk levels (Carter and Linnell 2016). However, the management strategies of human-bat coexistence conflicts on Reunion Island have tended to disproportionately prioritize human concerns over the welfare of bats. Contemporary conservation frameworks emphasize the need to integrate social well-being with biodiversity protection (Rice et al. 2020), yet social dimensions are still often neglected, including the displacement of local communities, their exclusion from decision making, and the inequitable distribution of conservation costs and benefits (Kaplan-Hallam and Bennett 2017, Armitage et al. 2020). A top-down approach to conservation could further exacerbate tensions rather than resolve them (e.g., Brockington and Igoe 2006), particularly when the perspectives of affected communities are marginalized. Stakeholders therefore advocate for a bottom-up, participatory approach toward managing human-bat coexistence conflicts by not only including more stakeholder viewpoints in the decision-making process, but also ensuring that both human and bat interests are equitably addressed. Last, although stakeholders do not entirely reject the current protocol of displacing colonies through the installation
of artificial bat boxes following an anti-return system (Augros et al. 2015), they highlight the urgent need to measure its effectiveness. Successful implementation of artificial bat boxes needs to consider many ecological needs and landscape-level variables such as construction, placement, and long-term monitoring of the artificial bat boxes to enhance sustainability and occupancy levels (Crawford et al. 2022, Pschonny et al. 2022). The use of bat boxes on Reunion Island needs to be accompanied by further research, building on the groundwork of Augros et al. 2015, to increase the efficacy of this management action. This use of scientific evidence in conservation practice, or evidence-based conservation practice, enables the systematic evaluation of management interventions and supports informed decision making (Safalsky et al. 2019). Applying this framework to human-wildlife coexistence conflicts has proven successful in several contexts such as reducing conflict with bears (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011) and primates (Tranquilli 2016) by improving intervention outcomes and fostering public support for conservation. Allowing practitioners to ground their decisions in robust scientific research, rather than only on personal experiences, can encourage more sustainable and effective solutions to human-bat coexistence conflicts.

## Perspectives

The current study has identified three distinct stakeholder discourses about bats on Reunion Island. Although participants were instructed to consider bats in general during the Q-sort process, it is likely that species-specific characteristics influenced their responses. In particular, the urban-adapted RFTB, frequently encountered in buildings, may have shaped perceptions relating to nuisance, public health, and management strategies. In contrast, the larger and more visible *Pteropus niger*, which is endangered and more commonly associated with natural habitats and fruit crops, may have influenced views related to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. These implicit associations suggest that bats are not perceived as a homogenous group, but rather as distinct species with different ecological roles and levels of public familiarity. Future research should aim to disentangle these nuanced perceptions by exploring species-specific attitudes and knowledge, which would be particularly valuable for tailoring conservation messaging and conflict mitigation strategies on Reunion Island.

To further aid conservation and management measures, future research could explore the prevalence of these discourses among the general public. Such analysis would enable the identification of sociocultural or demographic profiles aligned with each discourse and reveal how these alignments influence risk perceptions and attitudes toward the ecosystem services and disservices associated with bats. Because stakeholders in this study have pointed out the incoherence among stakeholder decisions that have led to uncoordinated bat management actions, a social network analysis can be employed to map stakeholder communication and collaboration patterns. This is especially important in a One Health context that recognizes the importance of intersectoral and broad stakeholder collaboration and disciplines within a society for communication, collaboration, coordination, and capacity building (WHO 2024).

Finally, there is an urgent need to bridge the knowledge gap of the spillover and pathogenic potential of bat-borne viruses

between bats and the human population on Reunion Island, and also between bats and synanthropic species that have the potential to harbor and spread diseases. Although there have been no known reported cases of bat-related zoonoses on the island presently, prevention and preparedness are always better than cure, tying in with the One Health strategies that the government health sector is pushing forward.

## CONCLUSION

Our study calls for an assessment of bat conservation priorities on Reunion Island, especially in the growing context of One Health. The QM findings can help pave the way to better bat conservation and management strategies on Reunion Island. In particular, the diverse and contextualized stakeholder discourses in this study highlight the importance of such studies in an insular context with distinct issues and specific solutions. Moving forward, bat conservation on Reunion Island could benefit from: (1) a human-bat coexistence that considers the costs and benefits for both human and bat populations; (2) management actions that rely on scientific evidence to ensure long-term sustainability; (3) a deeper understanding of zoonotic spillover risk of and for bats; and finally (4) adaptable public awareness campaigns accompanied by open research, which are tested for effectiveness to combat persisting misconceptions and negative perceptions.

## Acknowledgments:

We are grateful to Muriel Dietrich for sharing her network of stakeholder contacts, to all interviewed participants of the pre-study for contributing their expertise and perceptions, all participants of the P-set for participating in the study, and for everyone who participated in the pilot test. Finally, we thank The French National Research Program for Environmental and Occupational Health of Anses (ANSES-22-EST-074) for funding our research.

## Data Availability:

The data and code that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author R. L. None of the data and code are publicly available because of information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

## LITERATURE CITED

Aguillon, S., M. Turpin, G. Le Minter, C. Lebarbenchon, A. O. G. Hoarau, C. Toty, A. Duchet, L. Joffrin, R. V. Ramanantsalama, P. Tortosa, P. Mavingui, and M. Dietrich. 2025. Role of individual and population heterogeneity in shaping dynamics of multi-pathogen shedding in an island endemic bat. PLoS Pathogens 21 (7): e1013334 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1013334

Armitage, D., P. Mbatha, E. K. Muhl, W. Rice, and M. Sowman. 2020. Governance principles for community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Science and Practice 2(2):e160. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp.160

Atlan, A., V. Van Tilbeurgh, and C. Lavergne. 2021. Les Français et la nature, une comparaison entre la métropole et les départements d'outre-mer. Société, nature et biodiversité.
Ministère de la Transition Ecologique, Paris, France. https://www.reunion.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Augros-al-2015-La_cohabitation_entre_1_homme et les microchiropteres a L-a Reunion_BD.pdf

Banyard, A. C., J. S. Evans, T. R. Luo, and A. R. Fooks. 2014. Lyssaviruses and bats: emergence and zoonotic threat. Viruses 6 (8):2974-2990. https://doi.org/10.3390/v6082974

Baruch-Mordo, S., S. W. Breck, K. R. Wilson, and J. Broderick. 2011. The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts. PLoS ONE 6(1):0015681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015681

Basak, S. M., M. S. Hossain, D. T. O'Mahony, H. Okarma, E. Widera, and I. A. Wierzbowska. 2022. Public perceptions and attitudes toward urban wildlife encounters - a decade of change. Science of the Total Environment 834:155603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155603

Bennett, N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, T. J. Durbin, G. Epstein, A. Greenberg, M. P. Nelson, J. Sandlos, R. Stedman, T. L. Teel, R. Thomas, D. Verissimo, and C. Wyborn. 2017. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205:93-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006

Brockington, D., and J. Igoe. 2006. Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conservation and Society 4(3):424-470.

Carter, N. H., and J. D. C. Linnell. 2016. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31(8):575-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006

Conenna, I., R. Rocha, D. Russo, and M. Cabeza. 2017. Insular bats and research effort: a review of global patterns and priorities. Mammal Review 47(3):169-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12090

Crawford, R. D., L. E. Dodd, F. E. Tillman, and J. M. O'Keefe. 2022. Evaluating bat boxes: design and placement alter bioenergetic costs and overheating risk. Conservation Physiology 10(1):coac027. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coac027

Crowley, S. L., S. Hinchliffe, and R. A. McDonald. 2017. Conflict in invasive species management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15(3):133-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1471

Debata, S. 2021. Bats in a cave tourism and pilgrimage site in eastern India: conservation challenges. Oryx 55(5):684-691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531900098X

de Perio, M. A., K. Benedict, S. L. Williams, C. Niemeier-Walsh, B. J. Green, C. Coffey, M. Di Giuseppe, M. Toda, J.-H. Park, R. L. Bailey, and R. J. Nett. 2021. Occupational histoplasmosis: epidemiology and prevention measures. Journal of Fungi 7 (7):510. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7070510

Dietrich, M., D. A. Wilkinson, A. Benlali, E. Lagadec, B. Ramasindrazana, K. Dellagi, and P. Tortosa. 2015. *Leptospira* and paramyxovirus infection dynamics in a bat maternity enlightens pathogen maintenance in wildlife. Environmental Microbiology 17(11):4280-4289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12766

Dodd, K. 2019. "Blood suckers most cruel:" the vampire and the bat in and before Dracula. Athens Journal of Humanities and Arts 6(2):107-132. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajha.6-2-1

Frick, W. F., T. Kingston, and J. Flanders. 2019. A review of the major threats and challenges to global bat conservation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1469(1):5-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14045

Furey, N. M., P. A. Racey, S. Ith, V. Touch, and J. Cappelle. 2018. Reproductive ecology of wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bats *Chaerephon plicatus* in relation to guano production in Cambodia. Diversity 10(3):91. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030091

Gong, C., R. Yang, and S. Li. 2024. The role of urban green space in promoting health and well-being is related to nature connectedness and biodiversity: evidence from a two-factor mixed-design experiment. Landscape and Urban Planning 245:105020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105020

Gonzalez, V., and A. Banerjee. 2022. Molecular, ecological, and behavioral drivers of the bat-virus relationship. iScience 25 (8):104779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104779

Goodman, S. M., B. J. van Vuuren, F. Ratrimomanarivo, J.-M. Probst, and R. C. K. Bowie. 2008. Specific status of populations in the Mascarene Islands referred to *Mormopterus acetabulosus* (Chiroptera: Molossidae), with description of a new species. Journal of Mammalogy 89:1316-1327. https://doi.org/10.1644/07-MAMM-A-232.1

Guth, S., N. Mollentze, K. Renault, D. G. Streicker, E. Visher, M. Boots, and C. E. Brook. 2022. Bats host the most virulent — but not the most dangerous — zoonotic viruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119:e2113628119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113628119

Haley, A. L., T. A. Lemieux, M. L. Piczak, S. Karau, A. D'Addario, R. L. Irvine, C. Beaudoin, J. R. Bennett, and S. J. Cooke. 2023. On the effectiveness of public awareness campaigns for the management of invasive species. Environmental Conservation 50(4):202-211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689292300019X

Hemming, V., A. E. Camalang, M. S. Adams, M. Burgman, K. Carbeck, J. Carwardine, I. Chadès, L. Chalifour, S. J. Converse, L. N. K. Davidson, G. E. Garrard, R. Finn, J. R. Fleri, J. Huard, H. J. Mayfield, E. M. Madden, I. Naujokaitis-Lewis, H. P. Possingham, L. Rumpff, M. C. Runge, D. Stewart, V. J. D. Tulloch, T. Walshe, and T. G. Martin. 2022. An introduction to decision science for conservation. Conservation Biology 36(1):e13868. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13868

Hoarau, A. O. G., M. Köster, M. Dietrich, G. Le Minter, L. Joffrin, R. V. Ramanantsalama, P. Mavingui, and C. Lebarbenchon. 2023. Synchronicity of viral shedding in molossid bat maternity colonies. Epidemiology and Infection 151:e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268823000171

Jackson, R. T., T. J. Lunn, I. K. DeAnglis, J. G. Ogola, P. W. Webala, and K. M. Forbes. 2024. Frequent and intense human-bat interactions occur in buildings of rural Kenya. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 18(5):e0011988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011988
Joffrin, L., A. O. G. Hoarau, E. Lagadec, M. Köster, R. V. Ramanantsalama, P. Mavingui, and C. Lebarbenchon. 2021. Astrovirus in Reunion free-tailed bat (*Mormopterus francoismoutoi*). Viruses **13**(8):1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13081524

Kaplan-Hallam, M., and N. J. Bennett. 2017. Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology **32**(2):304–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12985

Kier, G., H. Kreft, T. M. Lee, W. Jetz, P. L. Ibisch, C. Nowicki, J. Mutke, and W. Barthlott. 2009. A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences **106**(23):9322–9327. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810306106

Levesque, A., T. Fouqueray, and J. Dupras. 2023. Beyond setting conservation targets: Q-method as a powerful tool to collectively set an action plan agenda. Frontiers in Conservation Science **4**:1097360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2023.1097360

López-Baucells, A., R. Rocha, Z. Andriatafika, T. Tojosoa, J. Kemp, K. Forbes, and M. Cabeza. 2017. Roost selection by synanthropic bats in rural Madagascar: what makes non-traditional structures so tempting? *Hystrix* **28**(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-28.1-12046

Low, M.-R., W. Z. Hoong, Z. Shen, B. Murugavel, N. Mariner, L. M. Paguntalan, K. Tanalgo, M. M. Aung, Sheherazade, L. A. Bansa, T. Sritongchuay, J. H. Preble, and S. A. Aziz. 2021. Bane or blessing? Reviewing cultural values of bats across the Asia-Pacific region. Journal of Ethnobiology **41**(1):18–34. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.1.18

Lutfallah, S., and L. Buchanan. 2019. Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software. Mental Lexicon **14**(3):415–423. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut

Lutton, J. P. 2016. Les chauves-souris débarquent en ville. 11 septembre. Journal de l'île de La Réunion.

Lutton, J. P. 2021. Ces chauves-souris qui polluent le quotidien des locataires. 6 avril. Journal de l'île de La Réunion.

Markotter, W., T. C. Mettenleiter, W. B. Adisasmito, S. Almuhairi, C. B. Behravesh, P. Bilivogui, S. A. Bukachi, N. Casas, N. C. Becerra, D. F. Charron, A. Chaudhary, J. R. Ciacci Zanella, A. A. Cunningham, O. Dar, N. Debnath, B. Dungu, E. Farag, G. F. Gao, D. T. S. Hayman, and L. Zhou. 2023. Prevention of zoonotic spillover: from relying on response to reducing the risk at source. PLoS Pathogens **19**(10):e1011504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1011504

Matzek, V., J. Covino, J. L. Funk, and M. Saunders. 2014. Closing the knowing-doing gap in invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conservation Letters **7**(3):208–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12042

Musila, S., P. Prokop, and N. Gichuki. 2018. Knowledge and perceptions of, and attitudes to, bats by people living around Arabuko-Sokoke forest, Malindi-Kenya. Anthrozoös **31**(2):247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1434065

Ngo, K. M., T. Hosaka, and S. Numata. 2019. The influence of childhood nature experience on attitudes and tolerance towards

problem-causing animals in Singapore. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening **41**:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.003

Nguyen, V. M., N. Young, and S. J. Cooke. 2017. A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management. Conservation Biology **31**(4):789–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12857

Olival, K. J. 2015. To cull, or not to cull, bat is the question. EcoHealth **13**(1):6–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1075-7

Olszańska, A., W. Solarz, and K. Najberek. 2016. To kill or not to kill — practitioners’ opinions on invasive alien species management as a step towards enhancing control of biological invasions. Environmental Science and Policy **58**:107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.008

Pennisisi, L. A., S. M. Holland, and T. V. Stein. 2004. Achieving bat conservation through tourism. Journal of Ecotourism **3**(3):195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200508668432

Pooley, S., M. Barua, W. Beinart, A. Dickman, G. Holmes, J. Lorimer, A. J. Loveridge, D. W. Macdonald, G. Marvin, S. Redpath, C. Sillero-Zubiri, A. Zimmermann, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2017. An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations. Conservation Biology **31**(3):513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12859

Pooley, S., S. Bhatia, and A. Vasava. 2021. Rethinking the study of human-wildlife coexistence. Conservation Biology **35**(3):784–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13653

Probst, J., and M. Sanchez. 2015. Découverte d'une nouvelle colonie de Roussette des Mascareignes *Pteropus niger* (Kerr, 1792) dans l'Est de La Réunion. Bulletin Phaethon **41**:1–4.

Pschonny, S., J. Leidinger, R. Leitl, and W. W. Weisser. 2022. What makes a good bat box? How box occupancy depends on box characteristics and landscape-level variables. Ecological Solutions and Evidence **3**(1):e12136. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12136

Rahman, S.-S. N. A., R. C. T. Tingga, M. F. M. Bukhori, and S. M. A. A. Abdullah. 2023. A brief review of the nutritive value and chemical components of bat guano and its potential use as a natural fertiliser in agriculture. Borneo Journal of Resource Science and Technology **13**(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.33736/BJRST.5100.2023

Rastogi, A., G. M. Hickey, R. Badola, and S. A. Hussain. 2013. Diverging viewpoints on tiger conservation: a Q-method study and survey of conservation professionals in India. Biological Conservation **161**:182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.013

Raymond, C. M., J. O. Kenter, T. Plieninger, N. J. Turner, and K. A. Alexander. 2014. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics **107**:145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033

Redpath, S. M., J. Young, A. Evely, W. M. Adams, W. J. Sutherland, A. Whitehouse, A. Amar, R. A. Lambert, J. D. C. Linnell, A. Watt, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution **28**(2):100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
Rice, W. S., M. R. Sowman, and M. Bavinck. 2020. Using Theory of Change to improve post-2020 conservation: A proposed framework and recommendations for use. Conservation Science and Practice 2(12):e301. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.301

Rocha, R., S. A. Aziz, C. E. Brook, W. D. Carvalho, R. Cooper-Bohannon, W. F. Frick, J. C.-C. Huang, T. Kingston, A. López-Baucells, B. Maas, F. Mathews, R. A. Medellin, K. J. Olival, A. J. Peel, R. K. Plowright, O. Razgour, H. Rebelo, L. Rodrigues, S. J. Rossiter, D. Russo, T. M. Straka, E. C. Teeling, T. Treuer, C. C. Voigt, and P. W. Webala. 2021. Bat conservation and zoonotic disease risk: a research agenda to prevent misguided persecution in the aftermath of COVID-19. Animal Conservation 24(3):303–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12636

Russo, D., and L. Ancillotto. 2015. Sensitivity of bats to urbanization: a review. Mammalian Biology 80(3):205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2014.10.003

Russo, D., J. L. Coleman, L. Ancillotto, and C. Korine. 2022. Ecosystem services by bats in urban areas. Pages 167–180 in L. Moretto, J. L. Coleman, C. M. Davy, M. B. Fenton, C. Korine, and K. J. Patriquin, editors. Urban bats. Fascinating life sciences. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13173-8_12

Salafsky, N., J. Boshoven, Z. Burivalova, N. S. Dubois, A. Gomez, A. Johnson, A. Lee, R. Margoluis, J. Morrison, J. Muir, S. C. Pratt, A. S. Pullin, D. Salzer, A. Stewart, W. J. Sutherland, and C. F. R. Wordley. 2019. Defining and using evidence in conservation practice. Conservation Science and Practice 1(5):e27. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.27

Sterling, E. J., E. Betley, A. Sigouin, A. Gomez, A. Toomey, G. Cullman, C. Malone, A. Pekor, F. Arengo, M. Blair, C. Filardi, K. Landrigan, and A. L. Porzecanski. 2017. Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 209:159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008

Stott, D., D. Forde, C. Sharma, J. M. Deutsch, M. Bruneau, Jr., J. A. Nasser, M. Z. Vitolins, and B.-J. Milliron. 2024. Interactions with nature, good for the mind and body: a narrative review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21(3):329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030329

Strasberg, D., M. Rouget, D. M. Richardson, S. Baret, J. Dupont, and R. M. Cowling. 2005. An assessment of habitat diversity and transformation on La Réunion Island (Mascarene Islands, Indian Ocean) as a basis for identifying broad-scale conservation priorities. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(12):3015–3032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-0258-2

Tershy, B. R., K.-W. Shen, K. M. Newton, N. D. Holmes, and D. A. Croll. 2015. The importance of islands for the protection of biological and linguistic diversity. BioScience 65(6):592–597. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv031

Tranquilli, S. 2016. The role of evidence-based conservation in improving primate conservation. Pages 269-286 in S. A. Wich and A. J. Marshall, editors. An introduction to primate conservation. Oxford Academic, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198703389.003.0017

Umar, F., H. Winarso, and I. Kustiawan. 2024. “Bats are part of us”: the role of bats in shaping community identity in Watansoppeng city, Indonesia. City and Environment Interactions 21:100139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2023.100139

Vande Velde, K., J. Hugé, D. A. Friess, N. Koedam, and F. Dahdouh-Guebas. 2019. Stakeholder discourses on urban mangrove conservation and management. Ocean and Coastal Management 178:104810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.05.012

Voigt, C. C., K. L. Phelps, L. F. Aguirre, M. Corrie Schoeman, J. Vanitharani, and A. Zubaid. 2016. Bats and buildings: the conservation of synanthropic bats. Pages 427–462 in C. C. Voigt and T. Kingston, editors. Bats in the Anthropocene: conservation of bats in a changing world. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9

Wallen, K. E., and G. T. Kyle. 2018. The efficacy of message frames on recreational boaters' aquatic invasive species mitigation behavioral intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23(4):297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1434705

Walsh, J. C., L. V. Dicks, C. M. Raymond, and W. J. Sutherland. 2019. A typology of barriers and enablers of scientific evidence use in conservation practice. Journal of Environmental Management 250:109481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109481

White, R. L., K. Eberstein, and D. M. Scott. 2018. Birds in the playground: evaluating the effectiveness of an urban environmental education project in enhancing school children's awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards local wildlife. PLoS ONE 13(3):e0193993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193993

Wijeskara, N. 2023. The need for One Health approach at the recent Anthropocene. Pages 1–18 in M. Vithanage and M. N. V. Prasad, editors. One health: human, animal, and environment triad. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119867333.ch1

World Health Organization (WHO). 2024. One health. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1

Zabala, A., C. Sandbrook, and N. Mukherjee. 2018. When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology 32(5):1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123
*Ecology and Society*

*Research article*

Supplementary Information

*This supplementary information has not been peer reviewed.*

Title: **Threatened or thriving?** – Q methodology reveals
stakeholder discourses of bats in an insular context.
<table><caption>Table A1.1. Characteristics of participants of the Q-sort</caption><thead><tr><td>Sector of employment</td><td>Number of participants</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Research and education</td><td>3</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Public administration</td><td>6</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Public institution</td><td>8</td><td>26.7</td></tr><tr><td>Non-governmental organisation (NGO)</td><td>5</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental consultancy</td><td>4</td><td>13.3</td></tr><tr><td>Private and semi-private organisations</td><td>4</td><td>13.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table A1.2. Q-sort statements (in French) with corresponding statement numbers and categories.</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Statements (S)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Valeur de conservation (e.g., services écosystémiques)</td><td>1 La notion de services écosystémiques est problématique pour la conservation des chauves-souris car il s'agit d'une vision anthropocentrique.</td></tr><tr><td>2 Les chauves-souris étaient présentes à La Réunion avant l'homme et ont donc toute légitimité à avoir leur place sur l'île</td></tr><tr><td>3 La présence de chauves-souris sur la Réunion représente une excellente opportunité d'éduquer nos enfants à la nature.</td></tr><tr><td>4 La quantification et l'évaluation des services écosystémiques apportés par les chauves-souris devraient être au coeur de la stratégie de conservation et de gestion à la Réunion.</td></tr><tr><td>5 Les chauves-souris sont bénéfiques pour l'économie agricole de la Réunion, car elles se nourrissent de ravageurs des cultures.</td></tr><tr><td>6 Les chauves-souris étant les seuls mammifères indigènes de la Réunion, elles devraient être considérées comme des emblèmes de la biodiversité de l'île.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Interactions entre l'homme et la chauve-souris</td><td>7 La population a perdu sa sensibilité à la nature et à l'environnement, ce qui entraîne des conflits avec les chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>8 La cohabitation peut être considérée comme une connexion entre l'homme et tout ce qui l'entoure et donc ne doit pas être considérée comme un problème.</td></tr><tr><td>9 Plutôt que de se demander s'il existe un risque pour les humains de cohabiter avec les chauves-souris, nous devrions nous demander quels sont les risques pour les chauves-souris d'être en contact aussi rapproché avec la population humaine.</td></tr><tr><td>10 L'urbanisation a créé de nombreux habitats artificiels (ponts, bâtiments, etc.) pour le petit molosse (seule espèce de chauve-souris endémique de l'île) ce qui a favorisé la croissance de la population et représente un point positif.</td></tr><tr><td>11 Le fait d'avoir plus d'espaces verts autour des habitations (parcs, jardins, etc.) favorise des interactions plus positives entre l'homme et la faune, ce qui, à son tour, peut être positif pour la conservation des chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>12 C'est la manière dont on interagit avec les chauves-souris plutôt que leur présence dans notre environnement qui pose un problème.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>13</td><td>Les chauves-souris constituent une menace pour l'économie agricole de la Réunion, car certaines espèces se nourrissent dans des zones cultivées.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Santé publique</td><td>14</td><td>La population réunionnaise n'est pas sensibilisée aux problématiques de santé publique associées aux chauves-souris, car il n'y en a pas.</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Les chauves-souris de l'île ne présentent aucun risque sanitaire pour la population tant qu'il n'y a pas d'interaction directe.</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Il est plus positif que négatif que la pandémie de COVID-19 ait rappelé à la population que les chauves-souris sont porteuses de maladies.</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Il n'y a jamais eu de zoonose (maladie transmise par les animaux) causée par les chauves-souris à la Réunion, elles ne présentent donc aucun risque sanitaire pour la population.</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>En cas d'épidémie qui impliquerait les chauves-souris, la santé et la sécurité des réunionnais doivent être prioritaires par rapport à la conservation et à la protection des chauve-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>L'administration territoriale de l'État n'a pas pris suffisamment de mesures pour préparer la population à d'éventuelles épidémies causées par des zoonoses.</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Les chauves-souris n'ont pas leur place dans une approche une seule santé (One Health) étant donné qu'elles ne présentent pas de risque sanitaire.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>21</td><td>L'intégration des chauves-souris dans une approche une seule santé (One Health) serait bénéfique pour leur conservation et leur gestion.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Perceptions public/médiation scientifique</td><td>22</td><td>La sensibilisation des réunionnais a contribué à améliorer les perceptions négatives des chauves-souris et devrait être poursuivie.</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>La population est plus réceptive aux services écosystémiques apportés par les chauves-souris, ils devraient donc être utilisés pour sensibiliser le public.</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Dans la conscience collective, les chauves-souris, les requins, les rongeurs ont longtemps eu une mauvaise image qui nous amène à les associer à la peur, au dégoût ou aux maladies.</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Les enseignements sur la biodiversité locale et les sujets liés à la nature doivent être intégrés aux cursus pédagogiques dès le plus jeune âge.</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Les idées fausses et les mythes concernant les chauves-souris sont en grande partie dus à une connaissance et à une communication insuffisante sur ces animaux.</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Nous devrions être prudents sur la façon dont nous communiquons les connaissances sur les chauves-souris afin d'éviter des craintes injustifiées.</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>La pandémie de COVID-19 n'a pas modifié les perceptions concernant les chauves-souris car les habitants de l'île avaient déjà des perceptions négatives auparavant.</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>La recherche devrait être accompagnée d'une sensibilisation du public, car elle permet d'intéresser les gens aux chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>30</td><td>Un organisme qui pilote et harmonise les décisions prises en matière de conservation et de gestion des chauves-souris devrait être mis en place.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Actions de gestion</td><td>31</td><td>La délocalisation des colonies de chauves-souris est une solution à très court terme, car elle ne fait que déplacer le problème vers un autre endroit.</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Un protocole standardisé sur la manière de gérer les colonies de chauves-souris installées dans les habitations n'est pas utile car chaque cas est évalué individuellement.</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>La préservation des espaces naturels n'est pas la priorité pour la protection du petit molosse car la plupart des colonies se trouvent dans des milieux urbains.</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>La gestion des chauves-souris sur l'île de la Réunion nécessite une approche ascendante pour assurer la coordination entre les acteurs concernés.</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>L'efficacité des gîtes artificiels est limitée en raison de leur petite taille et de leur coût, ainsi que du manque de suivi.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="14">Conservation opportunités, etc.) (menaces, solutions</td><td>36</td><td>La Réunion offre des possibilités d'écotourisme liées aux chauves-souris qu'il faudrait exploiter pour favoriser leur conservation.</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Le guano devrait être davantage exploité pour fertiliser des cultures et des jardins, et être ainsi promouvoir la conservation des chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Le manque de connaissance des statuts de protection des chauves-souris sur l'île constitue un risque pour leur conservation.</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Les connaissances issues de la recherche scientifique sur les chauves-souris réunionnaises devraient être partagées ouvertement afin que les gens les apprécient et soutiennent leur conservation.</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Les médias à La Réunion sont bien sensibilisés et ne risquent pas de diffuser des informations fausses ou non étayées sur les chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>La destruction des espaces naturels de la Réunion a un impact majeur sur les chauves-souris et doit être réduite de toute urgence pour les protéger.</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Les acteurs sont en concurrence et mettent en place des actions sans communiquer entre eux, ce qui représente un frein à la conservation et de la gestion durable des chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>L'efficacité et la rentabilité des éoliennes à la Réunion en tant que source d'énergie sont trop importantes pour qu'il soit nécessaire de prendre en considération les dangers potentiels qu'elles représentent pour les chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Les lignes électriques aériennes constituent une menace pour les chauves-souris à la Réunion et nécessitent plus d'attention et une meilleure gestion.</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Nous devrions envisager la science participative pour évaluer l'efficacité des gîtes artificiels pour les chauves-souris.</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Les chauves-souris de La Réunion sont menacées par la destruction de leur habitat et la réduction des espaces naturels, c'est pourquoi elles sont protégées par directive européenne et dans le code de l'environnement à l'échelle nationale.</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Le fait que des colonies de chauves-souris soient encore délocalisées prouve que la réglementation sur la protection des chauves-souris n'est pas assez stricte.</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Table A1.3. Stakeholder groups of significant loading participants of each factor/discourse.</caption><tr><td rowspan="3">Législation et protection</td><td>48</td><td>La protection juridique actuelle des chauves-souris est suffisante pour assurer leur préservation durable sur l'île de La Réunion.</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Les chauves-souris de la Réunion sont généralement très bien protégées et ne sont pas en danger, nous devrions plutôt concentrer nos efforts sur la conservation d'autres espèces qui sont réellement en danger.</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>La loi protégeant les chauves-souris doit être revue et prendre en compte, de manière plus préventive, la santé publique et la sécurité de la population, surtout depuis la pandémie de covid-19.</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><td>Discourse</td><td>Sector</td><td>Number of loading participants</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">1 – Human-oriented (n = 9)</td><td>Private or semi-private organisation</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Public institution</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Public administration</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>NGO</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">2 – Nature-oriented (n = 10)</td><td>Private or semi-private organisation</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Public institution</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>NGO</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Public administration</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Research and education</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">3 – Public health and policy-oriented (n = 6)</td><td>Environmental consultancy</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Public institution</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Public administration</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Private or semi-private organisation</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure A1.1. Composite Q-sort or factor arrays for each identified factor. Each factor array is a merged average rank for each statement of each factor of a significantly loading participant's Q-sort. The statements (numbered 1 to 50 according to Table S1) have been sorted according to scale where most in disagreement = -5 and most in agreement = +5, and neutrality/no opinion = 0.</figcaption></figure>