Study calls for a rethink on how we manage the threats posed by hazardous species
image:
In Portugal, livestock guardian dogs can support agricultural communities to co-exist with wolves. Researchers on the current study say this is a positive example of measures being developed with humans and nature in mind
view moreCredit: Rewilding Portugal
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 USD 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 over-dependence 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.
Dr Matthew Faith led the study while working towards his PhD 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 standardise 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 makes 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 healthcare access and broader socioeconomic inequalities.
Dr 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. A key priority outlined in the study advocates for risks to be managed collaboratively between policymakers and local communities, enabling conflicting stakeholder interests to be navigated and ensuring local knowledge is taken into consideration.
Journal
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Method of Research
Literature review
Subject of Research
Animals
Article Title
A risk framework for addressing nature’s harmful contributions to people
Article Publication Date
4-Nov-2026
COI Statement
Dr Bruno Simoes (co-author) was employed by Rewilding Portugal during the initial preparation of this manuscript. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment