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

The urban presence of flying-foxes (pteropid bats) in eastern Australia has increased in the last 20 years, putatively reflecting broader landscape change. The influx of large numbers often precipitates community angst, typically stemming from concerns about loss of social amenity, economic loss or negative health impacts from recently emerged bat-mediated zoonotic diseases such as Hendra virus and Australian bat lyssavirus. Local authorities and state wildlife authorities are increasingly asked to approve the dispersal or modification of flying-fox roosts to address expressed concerns, yet the scale of this concern within the community, and the veracity of the basis for concern are often unclear. We conducted an on-line survey to capture community attitudes and opinions on flying-foxes in the urban environment to inform management policy and decision-making. Analysis focused on awareness, concerns, and management options, and primarily compared responses from communities where flying-fox management was and was not topical at the time of the survey. While a majority of respondents indicated a moderate to high level of knowledge of both flying-foxes and Hendra virus, a substantial minority mistakenly believed that flying-foxes pose a direct infection risk to humans, suggesting miscommunication or misinformation, and the need for additional risk communication strategies. Secondly, a minority of community members indicated they were directly impacted by urban roosts, most plausibly those living in close proximity to the roost, suggesting that targeted management options are warranted. Thirdly, neither dispersal nor culling was seen as an appropriate management strategy by the majority of respondents, including those from postcodes where flying-fox management was topical. These findings usefully inform community debate and policy development and demonstrate the value of social analysis in defining the issues and options in this complex human - wildlife interaction. The mobile nature of flying-foxes underlines the need for a management strategy at a regional or larger scale, and independent of state borders.

Potential Animal and Environmental Sources of Q Fever Infection for Humans in Queensland

Q fever is a vaccine-preventable disease; despite this, high annual notification numbers are still recorded in Australia. We have previously shown seroprevalence in Queensland metropolitan regions is approaching that of rural areas. This study investigated the presence of nucleic acid from Coxiella burnetii, the agent responsible for Q fever, in a number of animal and environmental samples collected throughout Queensland, to identify potential sources of human infection. Samples were collected from 129 geographical locations and included urine, faeces and whole blood from 22 different animal species; 45 ticks were removed from two species, canines and possums; 151 soil samples; 72 atmospheric dust samples collected from two locations and 50 dust swabs collected from domestic vacuum cleaners. PCR testing was performed targeting the IS1111 and COM1 genes for the specific detection of C.burnetii DNA. There were 85 detections from 1318 animal samples, giving a detection rate for each sample type ranging from 2.1 to 6.8%. Equine samples produced a detection rate of 11.9%, whilst feline and canine samples showed detection rates of 7.8% and 5.2%, respectively. Native animals had varying detection rates: pooled urines from flying foxes had 7.8%, whilst koalas had 5.1%, and 6.7% of ticks screened were positive. The soil and dust samples showed the presence of C.burnetii DNA ranging from 2.0 to 6.9%, respectively. These data show that specimens from a variety of animal species and the general environment provide a number of potential sources for C.burnetii infections of humans living in Queensland. These previously unrecognized sources may account for the high seroprevalence rates seen in putative low-risk communities, including Q fever patients with no direct animal contact and those subjects living in a low-risk urban environment.