Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon

Bauch, Simone; Birkenbach, Anna M.; Pattanayak, Subhrendu K.; Sills, Erin O.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1406495111

Cited by 98 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ambiguity in the latter cases arose from varying results based on mosquito species in question and the landscape context [42], the type of forest studied (sustainable forest reserve versus protected forest reserve; [45]), or the metric used to measure malaria (entomological inoculation rate (EIR) versus human-biting rate (HBR); [46]). Also, five of these 12 papers supported the idea that initial deforestation in new settlements increases malaria risk, but as deforestation proceeds it can translate into lower malaria risk [13,17,37–39].…”

Section: Systematic Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…land clearing, logging, extraction of forest products, hunting and fishing) increase human contact with malaria vectors leading to a rise in malaria cases, but only 57% of these (4 of 7) collected survey data to test this relationship [16,19,56,57]. The association between forest-related activities and malaria is supported by Bauch et al [45], who found that strictly protected forest areas promote lower malaria transmission, while sustainable-use protected areas are associated with higher malaria transmission. On the other hand, Barros et al [58] and Silva-Nunes et al [19] found no evidence that activities like hunting or fishing, which involve sleeping away from home (outside), increase malaria risk.…”

Section: The Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does deforestation promote or inhibit malaria transmission in the Amazon? A systematic literature review and critical appraisal of current evidence

Lima

Vittor

Rifai

et al. 2017

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable interest in the relationship between biodiversity and disease has recently captured the attention of the research community, with important public policy implications. In particular, malaria in the Amazon region is often cited as an example of how forest conservation can improve public health outcomes. However, despite a growing body of literature and an increased understanding of the relationship between malaria and land use / land cover change (LULC) in Amazonia, contradictions have emerged. While some studies report that deforestation increases malaria risk, others claim the opposite. Assessing malaria risk requires examination of dynamic processes among three main components: (i) the environment (i.e. LULC and landscape transformations), (ii) vector biology (e.g. mosquito species distributions, vector activity and life cycle, plasmodium infection rates), and (iii) human populations (e.g. forest-related activity, host susceptibility, movement patterns). In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review on malaria risk and deforestation in the Amazon focusing on these three components. We explore key features that are likely to generate these contrasting results using the reviewed articles and our own data from Brazil and Peru, and conclude with suggestions for productive avenues in future research.This article is part of the themed issue ‘Conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease: scientific evidence and policy implications'.

show abstract

Section: Systematic Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does deforestation promote or inhibit malaria transmission in the Amazon? A systematic literature review and critical appraisal of current evidence

Lima

Vittor

Rifai

et al. 2017

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although recent work has begun to describe the varied ways in which natural systems affect human health and well-being [66,67; see also Bauch et al (68) in this issue], the paucity of models and tools for exploring A framework for including natural capital in the broader context of formal and informal decision-making institutions along with other forms of capital: financial, human, manufactured, and social. Formal and informal institutions influence decisions by both service providers and beneficiaries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

Guerry

Polasky

Lubchenco

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

810

419

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. We explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 y since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being, advancing the fundamental interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services, and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.sustainable development | resilience | human well-being | decision making | beneficiary

show abstract

“…The appeal of the dilution effect has been recognized by others: “the desire to make the case for conservation has led to broad claims regarding the benefits of nature conservation for human health” (Bauch et al. ). Randolph and Dobson () were among the first to critique these claims, making the case that promotion of conservation to reduce Lyme disease risk, although well intentioned, was flawed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Malaria transmission in the Brazilian Amazon is high in protected areas that allow people access to forest, but low around protected areas where people are prevented from entering (Bauch et al. ). Ignoring this study and the many others like it makes it impossible for Levi et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%