IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0279601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mismatch between media coverage and research on invasive species: The case of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastián A Ballari
  • M Noelia Barrios-García

Abstract

Invasive species are a pervasive driver of global change with increasing media coverage. Media coverage and framing can influence both invasive species management and policies, as well as shed light on research needs. Using the wild boar (Sus scrofa) invasion in Argentina as a case study, we conducted a content analysis of media coverage and scientific articles. Specifically, we compared news and scientific articles based on their emphasis: ecological, economic, and health impacts and the overall perception portrayed in the news: “positive” when the articles emphasized benefits from wild boar and “negative” when focused on damage and/or loss. A literature search using Google news, Web of Science, Scielo, and Google Scholar yielded a total of 194 news articles and 37 research papers on wild boar in Argentina. More than half of the news articles focused on economic impacts of wild boar (56%) such as sport hunting, illegal hunting, and road accidents; while 27% focused on ecological impacts, and 10% on health impacts. In contrast, the majority of the scientific articles (65%) focused on ecological impacts of wild boar on native species and ecosystems; while 21% were related to health impacts and only 8.3% of scientific articles were related to economic impacts. This mismatch between media and science reveals a disconnection between social and scientific interests in wild boar and their management in Argentina, and it provides insights to research needs and prevention of management conflicts. Additionally, we found that 66.8% of news articles focused on “negative” aspects of wild boar, while 33.2% of news articles portrayed “positive” perceptions. This finding is very important because the management of invasive species such as wild boar usually requires lethal techniques, and the success of the programs depend on favorable social and political support. Good science communication is therefore key to helping scientists and managers perform more effective management actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastián A Ballari & M Noelia Barrios-García, 2022. "Mismatch between media coverage and research on invasive species: The case of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Argentina," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0279601
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279601
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279601&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0279601?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0215691 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Marta Rodríguez-Rey & Yaisel J. Borrell & Eduardo Dopico & Teja Petra Muha & Matteo Rolla, 2022. "Understanding public perceptions toward invasive species in different parts of Europe," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 65(12), pages 2257-2275, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0279601. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.