Local collaborators of war journalists are even more vulnerable due to the pandemic

by University of Amsterdam

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

They are indispensable in journalism, but their work is often overlooked: fixers, the locally-based collaborators who assist foreign war correspondents with their work. Since the outbreak of covid-19, these local contact persons, who are already in a vulnerable position, have come under extra pressure. That is the conclusion of media scholar Johana Kotisova in a paper that she recently presented during the Future of Journalism conference.

From Ukraine to Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip: wherever foreign reporters are active in conflict zones, they are largely dependent on the help of fixers. These locally-based media workers provide help, for example, through interpreting or translating, arranging accommodation and transport, and making contact with possible sources. Their knowledge of the local culture and infrastructure are indispensable to foreign correspondents.

Nevertheless, their important work is often overlooked, argues Johana Kotisova, who is researching the position and emotional strain on fixers and stringers (local freelance journalists). "People have great admiration for war correspondents, but a lot less attention is paid to the locals who assist them, even though they are playing an increasingly important role in journalism."

Danger and shrinking budgets

In recent years, journalism in conflict zones has relied more and more heavily on local collaborators. As a result of shrinking budgets, media organizations have less and less money available to station correspondents abroad and moreover the security situation for journalists has deteriorated in many regions. In order to continue being able to report on conflict zones, foreign media are making increasing use of the services of local fixers and stringers.

"Large media companies outsource risky work to vulnerable local media workers, who are often underpaid," says Kotisova.

Because of the coronavirus crisis, the role of local collaborators has become even more important, argues Kotisova in her paper. "Due to travel restrictions, many foreign journalists were no longer able to travel to conflict zones themselves and they relied on the reports from their local contact persons. As a result of that, many fixers started reporting directly and became de facto journalists themselves." This has given them more autonomy in an editorial sense, says Kotisova. "Above all, however, the pandemic has worsened an existing problem: that large media companies outsource risky work to vulnerable local media workers, who are often underpaid and can count on receiving little protection."

Fixers cannot escape

Irrespective of the pandemic, many fixers and stringers are faced with threats and violence in their work, which sometimes even results in death. They are often, for example, blamed for inappropriate or insensitive behavior of the foreign correspondents with whom they collaborate, says Kotisova. 'And in contrast to their foreign colleagues, local media workers are not able to flee by taking an airplane to their home country, because they are already there. They cannot go anywhere. A harrowing example of this is the current situation in Afghanistan, where interpreters and fixers who collaborated with Dutch journalists are now stuck and fear for their lives.' The dangers which fixers and stringers are exposed to create great emotional and mental strain. Moreover, these media professionals are in a vulnerable position in an economic sense, because they work freelance and are not employed by a media company.

"Fixers cannot flee to their home country, because they are already there. A harrowing example is the current situation in Afghanistan, where interpreters and fixers fear for their lives," says Kotisova.

Due to outbreak of the coronavirus, fixers and stringers are even more heavily burdened than normal, concludes Kotisova. She interviewed, among others, fixers in Ukraine and Israel/Palsestine about the consequences of the pandemic for their work and wellbeing. Many of them indicated that they were saddled with a whole range of extra duties, because they had to take over the journalistic work of foreign correspondents. That entailed additional pressure and risks. In addition, the isolation that arose from the pandemic, in combination with the already uncertain freelance existence, resulted in additional vulnerability among this group.

Insurance schemes and psychological help

Kotisova's research also reveals that the coronavirus has accelerated changes to international news gathering. Many media companies and correspondents intend to continue collaborating with fixers and stringers in conflict zones even after the pandemic. The researcher points out that this should, however, go hand in hand with a better position for local collaborators: "Now that media companies have started collaborating even closer with fixers and stringers, it is also their ethical duty to take care of them, instead of just their "Western" employees. Examples include protection and support in terms of insurance schemes, training courses and psychological help."

About the research project

In her project "Fixers, Stringers, and Foreign Crews: The distribution of risks and emotions in crisis reporting," Kotisova investigates the collaboration, emotions, and power relations among reporters, producers, fixers, and stringers working for foreign media in Israel/Palestine and Ukraine. The research is based on in-depth interviews with fixers, local producers, stringers, and foreign reporters. Its goal is to increase our knowledge and raise awareness on media workers' precarity and emotional labor and to contribute to more ethical global journalism.Journalism scholar team finds early foreign correspondents often came from socially less advantaged groups

More information: Project Website: fixersandjournalists.humanities.uva.nl/

Provided by University of Amsterdam 

CANADIAN Study finds excess use of non-emergency restraint among older psychiatric patients

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

Restrictive interventions like acute control medications and restraints are more likely to be used in non-emergency situations among older psychiatric inpatients than younger ones, a study shows.

Researchers found a clear pattern of higher rates of these controls being used in older adults in Ontario psychiatric hospitals between 2005 and 2018. 

“When considering non-emergency use of control interventions, this approach to care was most common in older adults, with the highest rates of restraint among the oldest-old,” said John Hirdes, a professor at the University of Waterloo’s School of Public Health Sciences and the study’s senior investigator.

The researchers examined 226,119 Ontario inpatient records during these years to determine how often older psychiatric inpatients are restrained in non-emergency situations compared to younger age groups, and to identify the factors associated with this non-emergency use in older psychiatric inpatients. They used data from the interRAI Mental Health assessment instrument—a comprehensive standardized assessment used routinely in psychiatric settings.

The rate for the oldest age group, 85 and over, was 1.6 times higher than among 45- to 64-year-olds (13.3 per cent compared to 8.3 per cent). Higher rates were also associated with being admitted from long-term care, being male, risk of falls, physical disability, and psychiatric symptoms. However, an important positive trend is the reduced use of restraints in older adults after the initiation of a province-wide quality improvement initiative that began in 2011.

“The use of control interventions is associated with many negative physical and psychological outcomes, particularly in older adults who are physically vulnerable,” Hirdes said. “Before resorting to these interventions, person-centred and non-pharmacological management strategies should be used to support older psychiatric inpatients with functional impairment, aggressive behaviour, cognitive impairment and delirium.”

Historically, nursing homes had rates as high as 64 per cent, but the inappropriate use of physical restraints and antipsychotics has dropped dramatically due to a different quality improvement focus, he said. Today, rates of physical restraint in Canadian nursing homes are below 5 per cent.

“Staff education and support programs could improve practice and ultimately protect older people from potential inappropriate treatment Hirdes said. “The use of control interventions in inpatient psychiatric units should be incorporated as a quality improvement activity to monitor changes at various service provision levels, and their use should be reported publicly as is already done in long-term care.”

The study, “Determinants of Non-emergency Use of Control Interventions in Older Canadian Psychiatric Inpatients: Analysing the InterRAI Mental Health Electronic Health Records,” was co-authored by Gary Cheung, Tina Mah, Yoram Barak and John Hirdes. It was published in Frontiers in Psychiatry
 

---

JOURNAL

Frontiers in Psychiatry

COVID-19: Governments must stop vaccine cost secrecy

Peer-Reviewed Publication

SAGE

Globally affordable COVID-19 vaccines will not be accessible until governments stop allowing vaccine companies to keep their manufacturing costs secret, according to a new paper published by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Billions in funding from taxpayers and governments in countries including the US and European Union has been so extensive that there is little investment or sunk costs for the vaccine companies to recover, except those associated with manufacturing.

Lead author Professor Donald Light, a professor of comparative health policy at the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine in the US, said: “Contrary to the ethics of vaccines as a public health good, companies have kept manufacturing costs to themselves, and only a few independent studies have researched them in detail.”

Drawing on previous studies, the authors estimate that the net manufacturing costs for 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine ready for shipping appear to range from US$ 0.54 to US$ 0.98. Light commented: “A recent study of costs for adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines estimates substantially lower costs, and a detailed study of mRNA vaccines estimates the unit cost is US$ 2.85 for Moderna and US$ 1.18 for Pfizer.”

Light said: “Given that these cost estimates include the sustainability of facilities, production lines, equipment and all manufacturing personnel, sustainable vaccine prices with a modest profit margin should be marginally more than the production costs. Yet prices charged countries range from US$ 2.15-5.25 for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and US$ 14.70-25.50 for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.”

Light added: “Companies expect to charge many times more after they exercise their right to declare the pandemic is over. These higher prices, despite discounts and tiered pricing for middle- and lower-income countries, are likely to prolong the global pandemic.”

“Governments must stop being partners in secrecy, and as purchasers they should demand public, verifiable reports on net costs, after direct and indirect taxpayers’ subsidies, in order to set globally affordable cost-plus prices for these global public health goods.”

JOURNAL

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

DOI

10.1177/01410768211053006 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

The costs of coronavirus vaccines and their pricing

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

4-Nov-2021

In-person school during COVID-19 must address needs of underserved communities

NIH commentary highlights community engagement in research design and implementation

Peer-Reviewed Publication

NIH/EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

WHAT:

Safe, in-person school during the COVID-19 pandemic requires research that involves community engagement in underserved or vulnerable areas of the United States, writes Alison Cernich, Ph.D., deputy director of NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and colleagues. Earlier studies on safety measures in schools (e.g., masking, physical distancing and symptom monitoring) were often conducted in affluent and ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. To address health disparities during the pandemic, NIH launched Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics – Underserved Populations (RADx-UP), which includes the Return to School Diagnostic Testing Approaches initiative. Projects from this initiative are also summarized in this special supplement of Pediatrics.    

Without in-person schooling, many children miss out on social development, school-based meals, speech or occupational therapy and after school programs. Loss of such services disproportionately affects minorities, socially and economically disadvantaged children and children with disabilities or medical complexities. The return to school testing initiative addresses the needs of these communities by requiring a partnership between researchers and community members. Families, school staff and community members have communication channels to discuss testing preferences, test results and other questions with the research team.

Results from the initiative have already provided evidence-based strategies to help prevent infection, contain outbreaks, reduce the time needed for quarantine and to track viral variants in diverse school settings across the country. Ultimately, the goal of the initiative, which is coordinated with NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education, is to facilitate safe, in-person learning by providing community-tailored access to COVID-19 testing and safety measures.

 

WHO:

Alison Cernich, Ph.D., NICHD Deputy Director, is available for interviews.

 

REFERENCE:

Cernich AN, Lee S, and Bianchi DW. Building the evidence for safe return to school during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatrics DOI: 10.1542/peds.2021-054268B (2021)

 

---

JOURNAL

PEDIATRICS

DOI

10.1542/peds.2021-054268B 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Commentary/editorial

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Building the evidence for safe return to school during the COVID-19 pandemic

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

4-Nov-2021

Unlike the US, Europe is setting ambitious targets for producing more organic food

by Kathleen Merrigan, The Conversation

All data are for 2019, with Euros converted to dollars at 1.12 Euro/dollar. *The U.S. does 

not count organic farmers – 16,585 represents the number of organic farms, some of which

 have more than one farmer. Credit: Table: The Conversation, CC BY-ND Source:

 Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, European Commission and USDA

President Joe Biden has called for an all-of-government response to climate change that looks for solutions and opportunities in every sector of the U.S. economy. That includes agriculture, which emits over 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year—more than the total national emissions of the United Kingdom, Australia, France or Italy.

Recent polls show that a majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and willing to make lifestyle changes to address it. Other surveys show that many U.S. consumers are worried about possible health risks of eating food produced with pesticides, antibiotics and hormones.

One way to address all of these concerns is to expand organic agriculture. Organic production generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional farming, largely because it doesn't use synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. And it prohibits using synthetic pesticides and giving hormones or antibiotics to livestock.

But the U.S. isn't currently setting the bar high for growing its organic sector. Across the Atlantic, Europe has a much more focused, aggressive strategy.

The EU'S Farm to Fork plan

The European Union's Farm to Fork strategy, often described as the heart of the European Green Deal, was adopted in 2020 and strengthened in October 2021. It sets forth ambitious 2030 targets: a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, a 50% cut in pesticide use and a 20% cut in fertilizer use.

Recognizing that organic production can make important contributions to these goals, the policy calls for increasing the percentage of EU farmland under organic management from 8.1% to 25% by 2030. The European Parliament has adopted a detailed organic plan to achieve this goal.

Credit: Chart: The Conversation, CC BY-ND Source: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture

Today the U.S. is the world's largest organic marketplace, with US$51 billion in sales in 2019. But the EU is not far behind, at $46 billion, and if it achieves its Farm to Fork targets, it is likely to become the global leader.

And that ambition is reflected in national food policies. For example, in Copenhagen 88% of ingredients in meals served at the city's 1,000 public schools are organic. Similarly, in Italy school meals in more than 13,000 schools countrywide contain organic ingredients.

The U.S. strategy is technology-driven

In contrast with the EU, the U.S. has no plan at the national level for expanding organic production, or even a plan to make a plan.

Less than 1% of U.S. farmland—about 5.6 million acres (2.3 million hectares) is farmed according to national organic standards, compared with 36 million acres (14.6 million hectares) in the EU. This small sector doesn't produce enough organic food to meet consumer demand, so much of the organic food consumed in the U.S. is imported from nearly 45,000 foreign operations. While the U.S. government tracks imports of only 100 organic food products—a small sliver of what comes in—spending in 2020 on these items alone exceeded $2.5 billion.

I see this gap as a huge missed opportunity. President Biden has called for a "Buy American" strategy to bolster the U.S. economy, but today consumers are spending money on organic imports without reaping the environmental or economic benefits of having more land under organic management. More domestic production would improve soil and water quality and create jobs in rural areas.

While the U.S. and the EU are working together to address agriculture's contribution to climate change, they have very different views on the role of organic farming. At a U.N. Food Systems Summit on Sept. 23, 2021, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack launched a new international coalition on sustainable productivity growth, calling on countries and organizations to join the U.S. in the cause of increasing yields to feed a growing world population. In his press briefings, Vilsack promoted voluntary, incentive-based and technological approaches to producing more food, such as gene editing, precision agriculture and artificial intelligence.

Patrick Barbour, winner of a climate-friendly farming competition sponsored by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, explains steps he is taking on his organic sheep and cattle farm to reduce carbon emissions and deliver environmental benefits.

Vilsack asserts that the European Union's emphasis on organic production will reduce output and push up food prices. This argument reflects a long-standing debate about whether organic farming can produce enough food to meet demand while using fewer chemical inputs.

The strongest support for the USDA strategy is no surprise. It comes mostly from conventional agriculture groups, including Syngenta, Bayer and Corteva—three of the four largest global agrichemical companies—along with their lobbying arm, CropLife America.

More organic doesn't mean going backward

In my view, these U.S. talking points are outdated. The world's farmers already produce enough food to feed the world. The question is why many people still go hungry when production increases year over year.

At the U.N. Food Systems Summit, many world leaders called for reforms to eradicate hunger, poverty and inequality, and address climate change. Food systems experts understand that global nutrition security depends on empowering women, eliminating corruption, addressing food waste, preserving biodiversity and embracing environmentally responsible production—including organic agriculture. Not on the list: increasing yields.

Addressing agriculture's role in climate change means changing how nations produce, process, transport, consume and waste food. I believe that when leaders call for cutting-edge, science-based solutions, they need to embrace and support a broad spectrum of science, including agroecology—sustainable farming that works with nature and reduces reliance on external inputs like fertilizers and pesticides.

The Biden-Harris administration could do this by developing a comprehensive plan to realize the untapped potential of organic agriculture, with clear goals and strategies to increase organic production and with it, the number of organic farmers. Consumers are ready to buy what U.S. organic farmers raise.Sri Lanka reverses organic farming drive as tea suffers

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NZ's government plans to switch to a circular economy to cut waste and emissions

by Hannah Blumhardt, The Conversation

Credit: Shutterstock/Brian Scantlebury

The New Zealand government is currently developing plans to address two crises—climate change and waste—and to embrace a circular economy. But it has no clear path for how to do this. The resulting muddle is watering down the potential of a circular economy to bring lasting change.

Public consultation is underway to develop an emissions reduction plan, following the Climate Change Commission's advice on carbon budgets towards New Zealand's 2050 net-zero target.

Another consultation document proposes to overhaul the country's waste strategy and legislation.

Both documents intend to move Aotearoa towards a circular economy—one that limits waste and pollution, keeps products in use, and regenerates natural systems to protect, not pillage, natural resources.

But the government's plans for circularity are fragmented, contradictory and uncoordinated. They fail to confront the business-as-usual drivers of the linear economy or to enhance collaboration.

New Zealand needs a dedicated Crown agency to champion a low-waste, low-emissions circular economy.

The need for circularity

New Zealand is one of the most wasteful countries in the OECD. Waste is not only a pollutant but the dead end of a linear supply chain that emits greenhouse gases at every step along the way.

Roughly half of global emissions come from producing and consuming stuff. Every bit of waste represents embodied emissions lost to the economy.

Circular practices preserve this embodied energy by keeping products and materials in use. This slows down global extraction of natural resources, from mining to tree-felling. The less is extracted, the more waste and emissions are reduced.

Currently, just 8.6% of the global economy is circular. This figure must double by 2032 to keep us on track to limit global warming to 1.5℃.

Doubling the circularity of New Zealand's economy would mean transforming production and consumption systems. Today, much of what we make and buy is inherently linear.

In a circular economy, products are built to last and designed for repair. Organics are composted to replenish soils. Business models favor sharing over individual ownership, and reuse over single use.

This seismic shift in economic direction demands coordination across sectors, strong leadership and a shared understanding of the circular model. The government must collaborate with those already practicing circularity and reconfigure the rules to wind down linear practices.

Lack of a whole-of-system approach

The consultation documents do not tell a shared circular economy story. The waste strategy focuses on end-of-product-life processes such as waste management, litter and recycling; the proposed emissions reduction plan discusses business models and innovation.

The waste proposal suggests the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) will eventually bind everything together in a "separate and broader circular economy strategy," but this risks creating a bigger tangle.

The confusion is not surprising. The government's work on circularity has been splintered between the Ministry for the Environment and MBIE. The agencies' organizational cultures and priorities differ and they have not connected their thinking for a whole-of-system approach.

Critical elements of the circular economy are falling through the cracks in the silos, particularly the part about economic transformation. Increasing corporate responsibility for waste is the hottest potato no one wants to touch.

The consultation documents propose few upstream policy interventions to trigger product redesign or new business models that reduce waste and emissions. Instead, they focus on using or disposing of waste after it's been produced, which presumes, rather than challenges, linear inefficiencies.

All the wrong circles

Despite responsibility being the central theme of the waste proposal, it makes nobody responsible for waste creation because it never analyzes where waste comes from. Instead, it emphasizes improved waste management and anti-littering laws. This lumps responsibility at the end of the pipe, on individuals and councils who cannot influence waste baked into the system further upstream.

Furthermore, product stewardship is ring-fenced to "end-of-life" activity, neutralizing its potential to redistribute responsibility further up product supply chains.

The emissions reduction plan does not fill this gap, apart from some promising initiatives for the construction sector. The connection it draws between circularity and climate abatement mostly relates to organic waste rather than overall production and consumption. Despite considering the potential for new business models to address climate change, product stewardship is barely mentioned.

Instead, it views circular innovation through the lens of the "bioeconomy," where waste-derived biomass is converted into bioenergy and new products. But a bioeconomy depends on continued waste generation, which is arguably non-circular. It also contradicts the waste proposal's suggestion to discourage waste-to-energy "downcycling" through levies.

A circular economy with no driver

The government cannot achieve circularity alone, but has no cogent plan for collaboration.

Supporting community groups and local enterprises does not appear a government priority. Both documents describe circularity and innovation as future states, yet many organizations already implement circular and zero-waste practices and are potential partners.

A Te Tiriti-based partnership is fundamental for economic transformation. The Climate Change Commission described the circular economy as aligned with a Māori worldview. Organizations like Para Kore show Māori leadership in advancing zero waste and circularity.

While the emissions reduction plan promises meaningful partnership with Māori, the waste proposal does not. This is a missed opportunity. New waste legislation could protect Māori decision-making rights and rangatiratanga over natural resources.

Rather than charting a clear path to a circular economy, the government is proliferating documents that perpetuate a business-as-usual approach where communities, councils and government run around in the wrong kinds of circles, cleaning up after industry.

The problem isn't a lack of good ideas. But these ideas aren't properly filtered or organized, important elements and key partners are missing and nobody's in the driver's seat.

Moving Aotearoa away from silos and towards a circular economy requires a dedicated Crown agency with a Te Tiriti-compliant governing structure. This agency could champion circularity, resource efficiency and conservation across the system, from resource extraction to product disposal.How seafood business models can incorporate circular economy principles

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Uncovered: 100 years of coastal transformation on Mersea Island

by CITiZAN

Cleaning archaeological remains on the beach at Mersea. Credit: CITiZAN

A team of community archaeologists from CITiZAN (the Coastal and Intertidal Archaeological Network) working in partnership with the local community on Mersea Island, Essex, have lifted the lid on the origins of rapid destruction of the island's coastal environment. With funding from the Natural Environment Research Council and the support of Mersea Island Museum, a unique community-led pilot project is helping to shape climate action locally and has the potential to support change on a national and even international level.

The findings from this project are brought together in an online exhibition, Changing Minds, Changing Coasts.

Researchers brought together an evocative collection of over 300 historical photos from private collections, postcards, and five hours of oral history, alongside a series of historical maps, which were then analyzed against archaeological and ecological indicators of coastal change. This exceptional dataset reveals a timeline of major changes to the foreshore, highlighting when human interactions and natural events combined to transform the island's coastline.

Oliver Hutchison, CITiZAN Lead Archaeologist, said: "The photographs, memories and keen observations of the Mersea community uncovered the complex story of coastal change in a way we didn't think possible for a citizen science project undertaken during COVID-19 lockdown conditions. This community-created data set is absolutely vital in helping us to understand what might happen to our coasts in the coming century and crucially, what we can do to shape that future."

A biodiverse foreshore

In the 1920s, Mersea was surrounded by vast, richly biodiverse marshlands. These mudbanks supported meadows of seagrass like eelgrass that played a vital role in reducing the impact of wave energy on the marshland

.Cudmore Grove cliffs, Mersea. Credit: Mersea Museum and CITiZAN

.Cudmore Grove,  Mersea. Credit: Mersea Museum and CITiZAN

Cudmore Grove, Mersea. Credit: Mersea Museum and CITiZCudmore Grove cliffs, Mers

Post-war farming

In the 1940s, the use of fertilizer on farmlands in the post-war years polluted the Thames estuary, negatively impacting seagrasses on the foreshore. As the grasses died, the mudbanks became unstable and coastal erosion increased.

The Big Freeze

The winter of 1962-3 brought the Big Freeze, which covered the coast in snow killing billions of shellfish and affecting the livelihoods of the islanders.

Monkey Beach, Mersea. Credit: Mersea Museum - Hardy Weaver Collection and CITiZAN

Painting boats

During the 1960s, tributyltin, a new anti-fouling paint used on boat hulls, polluted the water further, threatening the dwindling numbers of native oysters and other shellfish.

This timeline of environmental changes demonstrates the impacts of the actions, technologies, and interactions of humans with the natural world at a local level. It shows that our actions have consequences for the ecosystems and biodiversity that support us. Living memories can be a powerful reminder of the need to be better prepared for the inevitable effects of climate change by working with nature to tackle coastal erosion. It also brings into sharp focus how information from coastal communities can and should be seen—a rich resource of data for climate action.

The impact of coastal hardening on local ecosystems

---

More information: Online exhibition: storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b … 4b2091f3639eea058741

Provided by CITiZAN

Determining where the wild bears are

by German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig

Illustration of the general workflow of the r package enerscape. The energy landscape is

 computed starting from a raster of the digital elevation model and animal body mass 

using a locomotory model to calculate the energy costs of transport (ECOT). The ARC 

model (Pontzer, 2016) for legged, terrestrial animals is displayed as green lines, with blue

 circles showing the empirical data used for validation. Credit: German Centre for

 Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig

Large land animals have a significant impact on the ecology and biodiversity of the areas they inhabit and traverse. If, for example, the routes and stopping places of cattle, horses, sheep, and also those of wolves or bears overlap with those of people, this often leads to conflicts. Knowing and being able to predict the movement patterns of animals is, therefore, of utmost relevance. This is not only necessary for nature and landscape protection, and to safeguard agriculture and forestry, but also for the safety of human travelers and the security of human infrastructures.

Example—the brown bear

The Abruzzo region of Italy, the location of the Sirente Velino Regional Park, is home to the endangered and therefore protected Marsican brown bear (Ursus arctos marsicanus). Recording the bears' patterns of movement in the 50,000 hectare, partly populated area is especially important for their own protection, but also for that of the people living there and the sensitive flora. Movement pattern maps can be used to determine the bears' roaming routes and places of refuge more effectively. These can then be adequately protected and, if necessary, adjusted.

Traditional methods are expensive

Traditional maps of animal movements are mostly based on long-term surveys of so-called telemetry data; this comes from individuals fitted with radio transmitters. This type of map-making is often time consuming and expensive, and lack of radio contact in some areas means that no data can be collected at all. That was also the case in the vast and isolated Sirente Velino national park.

Researchers developed an alternative

Researchers from iDiv, the Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Aarhus University and the University of Oxford have developed software—named ENERSCAPE—with which maps can be created easily and cost-effectively. Dr. Emilio Berti is post-doctoral researcher with the Theory in Biodiversity Science research group at iDiv and the Friedrich Schiller University Jena. As first author of the study he stressed: "What's special is that the software requires very little data as a basis." The energy an animal needs to expend to travel a certain distance is calculated, based on the weight of that animal and its general movement behavior. This energy expenditure is then integrated with the topographical information of an area. "From this information we can then create 'energy landscape maps' for individuals as well as for groups of animals. Our maps are calculated rather than measured and thus represent a cost-effective alternative to traditional maps. In particular applications, such as the conditions in the Italian national park, our method makes the creation of movement pattern maps actually possible at all," said Berti.

Software helps with the designation of protection zones

Using ENERSCAPE, the researchers found that bears choose paths that require less energy expenditure. These paths often lead through settlements, so that the bears encounter humans—which frequently ends fatally for the animals. The software also predicts, that bears wanting to save energy will tend to stay in valleys, far away from human settlements. Bear conflict as well as protection zones can now be identified using ENERSCAPE. Its maps can also be used to check whether landscape elements are still well-connected enough to enable the animals to move around the area sufficiently.

ENERSCAPE is freely available and adaptable

The researchers' software ENERSCAPE is based on the widely used and openly accessible programming language 'R'. It has a modular structure and can therefore process animal movement and topographical data from a wide variety of ecosystem types. "This makes it possible for both researchers and wildlife managers to adapt the software to a wide variety of landscapes and animals," said Prof Fritz Vollrath from the Zoology Department of the University of Oxford and senior author of the study, emphasizing the special nature of ENERSCAPE. "This means that the number of maps of animal movement in landscapes will increase in just a short time. With significantly more cartographical data, the understanding of the behavioral ecology of a species in a certain habitat will also fundamentally change. This will primarily benefit nature conservation and, in particular, rewilding measures—the reintroduction of wild animals," said Vollrath.

The research was published in Methods in Ecology and Evolution.DNA analysis of grizzly bears aligns with Indigenous languages

More information: Emilio Berti et al, The r package enerscape : A general energy landscape framework for terrestrial movement ecology, Methods in Ecology and Evolution (2021). DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13734

ENERSCAPE: emilio-berti.github.io/enerscape.html

Journal information: Methods in Ecology and Evolution 

Provided by German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig