This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: While human well-being depends on the health of our ecosystems, there are also countless aspects of the natural world that pose serious threats to people. Every year, over 700,000 people die from diseases transmitted by animals, snakebites kill up to 500,000 people, and crop loss from pests carries an estimated cost of around $220 billion.
Because of that, global policymakers can struggle to reconcile human health priorities and economic interests with efforts to conserve all aspects of nature. The result is sometimes that actions designed to reduce risks posed, such as wildlife culls and overdependence on pesticides, can undermine wider conservation goals. To address this tension, a new study has called for biodiversity researchers and policymakers to learn from progress made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in climate risk management.
Using that as a basis, it advocates for human harms from nature to be framed as avoidable risks that arise from the intersection of ecosystem hazards with human exposure and vulnerability. Published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, the study was written by an international team from the University of Plymouth (UK), The Foundation for Biodiversity Research (France), University College London (UK), University of Washington (US), United Nations University (Germany), University of Bonn (Germany), Adelaide University (Australia) and the University of Galway (Ireland). That team comprises leading experts in biodiversity policy, zoonotic diseases, human-wildlife coexistence and risk management policy.
The framework they have proposed aims to support a more systematic approach to managing hazardous species, enabling researchers and policymakers to better assess the sustainability trade-offs of risk management interventions. Matthew Faith led the study while working toward his Ph.D. at the University of Plymouth and is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Foundation for Biodiversity Research in Montpellier, France. He said, "Biodiversity researchers and policy experts have struggled to standardize how hazardous species and ecosystems should influence environmental management decisions.
These struggles are visible in divided opinions on issues such as wildlife culling and pesticide use. "Our study does not provide opinions on the best approach to managing specific species or ecosystems, but instead provides a much-needed structure for risk assessment and deliberation to support evidence-based policy decisions." The study also shows an important link between global inequality and people's vulnerability to hazardous species. In particular, the authors link a range of risks, including mosquito-borne diseases, crocodile attacks and snakebite deaths, to poor health care access and broader socioeconomic inequalities.
Briana Abrahms, a professor at the University of Washington and study co-author, said, "Just as we've learned to manage climate risks by addressing both the hazards themselves and people's exposure and vulnerability, we need to apply similar thinking to human-wildlife coexistence. "By distinguishing between hazards, exposure and vulnerability, our framework proposes a much broader range of interventions that can reduce harm from wildlife while avoiding approaches that undermine the ecosystems we're trying to conserve. The goal is to find solutions that deliver lasting benefits for both people and nature." The researchers identified a series of priorities which they believe are essential for the framework to be put into practice.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
