Biodiversity conservation cannot afford COVID-19 communication bungles
Authors: Emily A. Gregg, Alexander M. Kusmanoff, Georgia E. Garrard, Lindall R. Kidd, Sarah A. Bekessy
Journal: Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2021)

With COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) dominating headlines, highlighting links between the pandemic and biodiversity may increase public awareness of the biodiversity crisis. However, ill-considered messages that frame nature as the problem rather than the solution could inadvertently propagate problematic narratives and undermine motivations and individual self-efficacy to conserve nature. With COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) dominating headlines, highlighting links between the pandemic and biodiversity may increase public awareness of the biodiversity crisis. However, ill-considered messages that frame nature as the problem rather than the solution could inadvertently propagate problematic narratives and undermine motivations and individual self-efficacy to conserve nature. With COVID-19 recently dominating media headlines, other ongoing global crises, such as biodiversity loss, have struggled to compete for attention. In response, conservationists have used new communication tactics, including framing (see Glossary) stories in ways that draw connections between COVID-19 and nature. However, not all publicity is good publicity; while this strategy aims to make nature stories topical, it risks reinforcing old narratives that frame nature as a threat to humanity. Consequently, it may inadvertently suppress the appetite of the global community to take action to protect, conserve, and bring back biodiversity, rather than provide the stimulant intended. One poignant example is a tweet from the Twitter account of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), highlighting findings of their Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics [1.Daszak P. et al.Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, 2020Google Scholar]: 'There are 1.7 million undiscovered viruses lurking in mammals and birds, half of which may have the ability to affect people' (IPBES Twitter, November 19, 2020; 343 likes, 218 retweets at time of publication)i. The full report details the complex relationships between human behaviour, nature, and the rise of pandemics [1.Daszak P. et al.Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, 2020Google Scholar], but with low click-through rates from social media posts (e.g., 1.3%ii), few of the Twitter audience (77,800 followers at time of publication) would have followed through to read these nuances. Instead, most received only the message of '1.7 million undiscovered viruses lurking' in wildlife. Statistics emphasising the prevalence of viruses in nature were front and centre of the IPBES' report media releaseiii (including the by-line itself, which states '631,000 – 827,000 unknown viruses in nature could still infect people'), suggesting a strategic choice to frame the issue in this way. The many media articles about the reportiv suggest that this framing successfully garnered media interest. Yet, it also risks generating a problematic connection between COVID-19 and nature; that of nature as a threat to human health. Other organisations have highlighted connections between nature's decline and the pandemic to raise awareness about the biodiversity and climate crises (e.g., UN Environmental Chief in The Guardianv). Yet, while the connections may be legitimate, these messages can backfire without a fully considered messaging strategy. For example, attempts to counteract negative perceptions of bats may have reinforced negative links between wildlife and disease [2.Lu M. et al.Does public fear that bats spread COVID-19 jeopardize bat conservation?.Biol. Conserv. 2021; 254: 108952Crossref PubMed Scopus (40) Google Scholar,3.MacFarlane D. Rocha R. Guidelines for communicating about bats to prevent persecution in the time of COVID-19.Biol. Conserv. 2020; 248: 108650Crossref PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar], and communications framing the COVID-19 economic crisis as a 'trial run' for climate action may not increase support for mitigation strategies as hoped [4.Ecker U.K.H. et al.Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support.J. Environ. Psychol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar]. By taking a strategic communications approach (Figure 1) and drawing on pre-established messaging evidence (e.g., see literature cited herein and onlinevi,vii, conservation professionals can work to avoid such pitfalls. Here, we focus on the message design stage of the strategic communications process. Specifically, we focus on message framing, narratives, and calls to action to provide guidance on how to craft messages about nature and COVID-19 that will increase support for conservation policies. Message frames influence how an audience perceives a problem and what they consider to be desirable solutions [5.Entman R.M. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.J. Commun. 1993; 70: 101464Google Scholar]. Messages linking COVID-19 and nature can inadvertently evoke frames that cast nature as the problem. Some frame nature as a host for viruses (see earlier), while others focus on animal vectors as the source of COVID-19, rather than human practices, such as wildlife trading, land clearing, and intensive meat production, which have changed the ways in which we interact with these animals (Figure 1A,C). In addition to framing nature as the problem, such message frames perpetuate outdated and problematic colonial narratives of humans as separate from nature and 'taming' nature [6.Deary H. Warren C.R. Divergent visions of wildness and naturalness in a storied landscape: Practices and discourses of rewilding in Scotland's wild places.J. Rural. Stud. 2017; 54: 211-222Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar,7.Korteweg L. Oakley J. Eco-heroes out of place and relations: decolonizing the narratives of Into the Wild and Grizzly Man through Land education.Environ. Educ. Res. 2014; 20: 131-143Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar]. These frames and narratives can be evoked in a message even when contrary to the original source or intention, as evidenced by the framing of the IPBES tweet described earlier, which does not reflect the general findings of the report [1.Daszak P. et al.Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, 2020Google Scholar]. To avoid such missteps, conservation professionals must consider how different messages emphasise different value systems [8.Elliott K.C. Framing conservation: 'biodiversity' and the values embedded in scientific language.Environ. Conserv. J. 2020; 47: 260-268Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar], influence risk perceptions, and affect dominant social narratives, all of which shape society's willingness to act [9.Louder E. Wyborn C. Biodiversity narratives: stories of the evolving conservation landscape.Environ. Conserv. J. 2020; 47: 251-259Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar]. For example, recent research shows that narratives framing the pandemic as caused by both animals and humans (as opposed to only animals or only humans) were most effective at eliciting proconservation policy support, particularly around the wildlife trade [10.Shreedhar G. Mourato S. Linking human destruction of nature to COVID-19 increases support for wildlife conservation policies.Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020; 76: 963-999Crossref PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar]. While results may vary across different contexts, such research illustrates the influence of framing and narratives on perceptions around COVID-19 and nature. Alternative frames linking COVID-19 and nature exist. Narratives of 'nature in the time of COVID', which frame nature as a part of the solution, have emerged among traditional news and social media platforms over the past yearviii,ix. Stories that frame nature as a source of wellbeing and health have become topical as populations find themselves in lockdown or their movement restricted to local green spaces (Figure 1D). These stories foster a narrative that 'nature is good for us', counteracting ideas that 'nature is scary and dangerous'. This narrative is integral to current efforts to enhance nature in cities and underpins the growing recognition that people depend on nature [11.Oke C. et al.Cities should respond to the biodiversity extinction crisis.NPJ Urban Sustain. 2021; 1: 11Crossref Scopus (58) Google Scholar]. Messages highlighting the number of viruses in nature have a similar role to oft-quoted statistics around accelerating extinction rates or habitat loss, the usual purpose of which is to heighten the audience's sense of urgency and risk, and evoke concern, panic, or fear. Yet, triggering these negative emotions without providing guidance for the audience about solutions rarely promotes action [12.Kidd L.R. et al.Neither hope nor fear: empirical evidence should drive biodiversity conservation strategies.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019; 34: 278-282Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar]. Instead, such messaging runs the risk of overwhelming and disengaging the audience. While messages that inspire hope can increase the likelihood of action, they can also lead to apathy by reducing the perceived risk [12.Kidd L.R. et al.Neither hope nor fear: empirical evidence should drive biodiversity conservation strategies.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019; 34: 278-282Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar]. A middle ground is needed. Climate change communications research has shown that pairing fear-inducing messages with an achievable and efficacious call to action can overcome the associated risks by enhancing self-efficacy [13.Hart P.S. Feldman L. Threat without efficacy? Climate change on US network news.Sci. Commun. 2014; 36: 325-351Crossref Scopus (135) Google Scholar]. Yet, few messages linking COVID-19 and nature communicate a clear action or solution, leaving readers with little guidance about what to do with the troubling information presented. The social media quote cards provided by the IPBESx describe vague, high-level, and largely unactionable solutions for the typical reader, including a 'greater focus on prevention', 'reducing anthropogenic global environmental change', 'transformative change', or establishing an intergovernmental pandemic prevention council. To promote citizen engagement and action, suggestions for actions that can be implemented by individuals are necessary to enhance self-efficacy and empower individuals to act in desirable ways for both global public health and biodiversity benefits. Examples of such actions, drawn from the IPBES report, include reducing consumption of intensively farmed meat and products from wildlife trade [1.Daszak P. et al.Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, 2020Google Scholar] (Figure 1B). Enhancing individual self-efficacy is also critical for increasing public pressure on organisations and political bodies with the power to enact the transformative systemic change required. As the conservation community increasingly seeks an audience through stakeholder engagement, messaging, and social marketing approaches [14.Veríssimo D. The past, present, and future of using social marketing to conserve biodiversity.Soc. Mar. 2019; 25: 3-8Crossref Scopus (40) Google Scholar], it is critical that this is done in a way that is effective for achieving desirable conservation outcomes. We applaud organisations such as the IPBES for actively seeking media coverage during the time of COVID-19, and acknowledge that critiquing another's messaging strategy is easier than designing an effective alternative. In Figure 1, we present a range of alternative tweets; two manufactured tweets present an alternative narrative that reframes the link between nature and COVID-19 and provides a call to action (Figure 1A,B), and three bona fide tweets provide good examples of the concepts discussed herein (Figure 1C–E). These messages focus on framing human practices (rather than nature) as the problem, framing nature as the solution, reinforcing supportive narratives for conservation, and including clear calls to action. We do not mean to suggest that these messages will necessarily be broadly effective across different audiences and contexts; organisations with capacity to engage in a comprehensive strategic communications planning process, including pre-testing, should do soxi. A perfectly considered media campaign is a rare luxury. However, conservation professionals, particularly within large well-resourced organisations, can influence social discourse about, and support for, nature and conservation in both positive and negative ways. As conservation messaging moves beyond its foundational discussions (e.g., fear- versus hope-inducing messaging) and toward an important role in more complex and context-specific (i.e., wicked) problems, it is vital that this contribution is strategic and constructive, and draws on well-established communication theories and guidance. We acknowledge the people of the Woi wurrung and Boon wurrung language groups of the eastern Kulin Nation on whose unceded lands we conduct our work. This research was supported by the Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. E.A.G. is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Support Scholarship and an RMIT DSC Strategic Investment Funds Scholarship. None declared by the authors. ihttps://twitter.com/IPBES/status/1329339343840964608?s=20 iiwww.statista.com/statistics/872099/social-media-advertising-ctr/) iiihttps://ipbes.net/pandemics ivhttps://ipbes.net/media-watch vwww.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/coronavirus-nature-is-sending-us-a-message-says-un-environment-chief viwww.publicinterest.org.uk/FramingNatureToolkit.pdf viiwww.frameworksinstitute.org/issues/climate-change-and-environment/ viiihttps://theconversation.com/heres-why-youre-craving-the-outdoors-so-much-during-the-coronavirus-lockdown-136375 ixwww.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52479763 xhttps://bit.ly/PandemicsReportResources xihttps://publicinterest.org.uk/TestingGuide.pdf the way an issue is described or how a problem is conceived, articulated, and approached. Framing can be identified or defined at different scales, from semantic framing (e.g., referring to wildlife as 'biodiversity' versus 'nature'), to the framing of entire issues (e.g., framing biodiversity conservation as a sustainability issue, an environmental justice issue, or a 'caring for nature' issue [8.Elliott K.C. Framing conservation: 'biodiversity' and the values embedded in scientific language.Environ. Conserv. J. 2020; 47: 260-268Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar]). These different frames can result in different interpretations of what is the problem and solution, and which 'characters' or 'objects' are relevant to the issue, and which are not. a story that links particular facts, evidence, and events in a consistent way that helps us to create meaning and understanding. Different narratives can generate alternative representations of the same objective 'reality'. the self-perceived ability of an individual to engage in a specific behaviour, or how empowered they feel to carry out the action. Self-efficacy can be influenced by how difficult the individual perceives the action to be (i.e., efficacy), and belief in the effectiveness of the action itself (i.e., response efficacy).