Wednesday, August 14, 2019: 1:30 PM
M103, Kentucky International Convention Center
Susanne H. Sokolow1, Skylar R. Hopkins2, Nicole Nova3, Andrea Lund4, Isabel J. Jones5, Andrew J. MacDonald4, Laura Kwong6, Meghan E. Howard3, Giulio A. De Leo3 and Kevin D. Lafferty7, (1)Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, (2)Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, (3)Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, (4)Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, (5)Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA, (6)Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, (7)USGS Western Ecological Research Center
Background/Question/Methods: For decades, we have known that environmental change can produce human infectious disease threats. For example, deforestation can increase childhood diarrhea, dam building can unleash parasitic diseases, and land use change can facilitate the emergence of new infectious diseases. Yet, the lack of objective scientific evidence on interventions that promote healthy outcomes for people and nature makes it difficult to guide action. To map a new way forward in cross-disciplinary research, we introduce a solutions-oriented approach based on ‘ecological levers for health,’ or actionable environmental interventions that augment and complement traditional medical or public health interventions, to achieve benefits for both people and nature. To scope the literature and define the state of the science for evidence-based ecological levers, we performed a quantitative literature review about existing research on the links between human infectious disease and conservation of nature. Using a Boolean string of conservation, human infectious disease, and ecological search terms we used an automated text-mining algorithm to probe the abstracts, keywords, and titles within Web of Science and NCBI Pubmed. A total of 12270 resulting abstracts were selected by this automated method. Using a combination of a machine learning tools, and screening of a large subset (nearly 2000 abstracts) by two human readers for inclusion criteria, ~400 papers were retained for analysis.
Results/Conclusions: We encountered a rich literature concerned with links between conservation and human infectious disease. Studies were about half reviews/opinions and half primary research. The focus of research included all continents except Antarctica, a diverse array (hundreds) of human infectious pathogens, and nearly every threat class identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a threat to biodiversity, including (but not limited to) such major concerns as: agriculture/livestock expansion, climate change, damming, deforestation, urbanization/development, wildlife disease, fragmentation, harvesting, invasive species, and pollution. Yet despite the broad set of studies reporting links between conservation of nature and human infectious disease, less than 2% of the studies both 1) did a conservation or health intervention, and 2) measured outcomes empirically for both conservation and human health. In an era of accelerating environmental change, we no longer have the luxury to ruminate on the problems. More solutions-based research is urgently needed to fill this evidence gap and pave the way for a healthier and more sustainable future for people and the planet.
