Connecting Global Priorities:
Biodiversity and Human Health
A State of Knowledge Review

Connecting Global Priorities:
Biodiversity and Human Health
A State of Knowledge Review

WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review.
1.Biodiversity. 2.Global Health. 3.Public Health. 4.Socioeconomic Factors. 5.Communicable Disease Control. 6.Climate
Change. 7.Humans. I.World Health Organization. II.Convention on Biological Diversity.
ISBN 978 92 4 150853 7

(NLM classification: WD 600)

© World Health Organization and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2015.
All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization are available on the WHO web site (www.who.int) or can
be purchased from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel.: +41 22
791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail: bookorders@who.int). Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO
publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press through the WHO
web site (http://www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html ).
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization (WHO) nor on the part of the Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent
approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. Moreover, the views expressed do not represent
the decision or the stated policy of WHO or CBD. The citing of trade names and commercial processes do not constitute
endorsement by WHO or CBD.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products, whether or not these have been patented, does
not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO or CBD in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO and CBD to verify the information contained in this publication.
However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The
responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health
Organization nor the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity be liable for damages arising from its use.
Cover photo credits: (left to right) 1st row i) iStockphoto/pailoolom ii) Conor Kretsch iii) Glen Bowes 2nd row i) Danny Hunter
ii)Bioversity International iii) A.Camacho 3rd row i) Glen Bowes ii) Jon Betz / NGS iii) Barry Kretsch 4th row i) iStockphoto/
rssfhs ii) iStockphoto iii) Ecohealth Alliance
Editing and design by Inís Communication (www.iniscommunication.com)

CONOR KRETSCH

Acknowledgements
This volume was jointly prepared by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World
Health Organization, in collaboration with several partners including: Bioversity International, COHAB
Initiative,  DIVERSITAS, Ecohealth Alliance, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO),  Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research (PAR), United
Nations  University-Institute for Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), United Nations  University -International
Institute for Global Health (UNU-IIGH), Wildlife Conservation Society, Health and Ecosystems Analysis of
Linkages (WCS-HEAL) and several other partners and experts.
The World Health Organization and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, wish to express
particular gratitude to the numerous authors and contributors to this volume without whom this unique volume
would not have been possible.
WHO and SCBD also wish to extend their gratitude to the following reviewers: Maria Puriﬁcacion Neira (WHO),
Sir Andy Haines (Chair of the The Lancet-Rockefeller Foundation Commission on Planetary Health), Carlo Blasi
(Sapienza University of Rome), Luiz Augusto Cassanha Galvão (PAHO), Ruth Charrondiere (FAO), Florence
Egal, Pablo Eyzaguirre (Bioversity International), Jessica Fanzo (Columbia University), Viviana Figueroa (CBD
Secretariat), Trevor Hancock (University of Victoria), Danna Leaman (IUCN, MPSG-SSC), Markus Lehmann
(CBD), Catherine Machalaba (EcoHealth Alliance), Keith Martin (CUGH), Jonathan Patz (Global Health Institute,
University of Wisconsin), Simone Schiele (CBD Secretariat), Cristina Tirado (UCLA), and the numerous Parties,
Governments and other peer reviewers who participated in two open peer review processes and in the ﬁnal
consultation held at IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia.
WHO and SCBD additionally wish to thank the following individuals and organizations: Flavia Bustreo (WHO)
Annie Cung (CBD), David Ainsworth (CBD), Didier Babin (CIRAD), Mateusz Banski (CBD), Charles Besancon
(CBD), Francesco Branca (WHO), Kathryn Campbell (Parks Victoria, Australia), Kimberly Chriscaden (WHO),
Stéphane de la Rocque (WHO/OIE), Carlos Francisco Dora (WHO), Beatriz Gomez Castro (CBD), Samantha
Collins (Bioversity International), Annie Cung (CBD), Jennifer Garard, Bruce Allan Gordon (WHO), Johan
Hedlund (CBD), Kahoru Kanari, Sakhile Koketso (CBD), Lina Mahy (WHO/SCN), Yukiko Maruyama (WHO),
Tanya McGregor (CBD), Christian Morris (CBD), Sabina Moya Huerta (WHO), Liz Mumford (WHO), Trang
Nguyen (Bioversity International), Steve Osofsky (WCS), Nada Osseiran (WHO), Michaela Pfeiﬀer (WHO),
Neil Pratt (CBD), Cathy Roth (WHO), Catalina Santamaria (CBD), Yahaya Sekagya, Negar Tayyar (UNU-IAS),
Billy Tsekos (CBD), Ann Tutwiler (Bioversity International), Kieran Noonan Mooney (CBD), Anthony Ramos
(EcoHealth Alliance), Shekar Saxena (WHO), Mohammad Taghi Yasamy (WHO), Stephan Weise (Bioversity
International), Sarah Whitmee (Lancet – Rockefeller Foundation Commission on Planetary Health), Ekaterina
Yakushina, Elena Villalobos (WHO), Qi Zhang (WHO), Camilla Zanzanaini (Bioversity International), United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Alexander von Humboldt Institute, Australian National
University, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, CONABIO, Global Crop Diversity Trust, Inís Communication,
Loyola Sustainability Research Centre (LSRC), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Parks
Victoria, Australia, Organization for Animal Health (OIE), TRAFFIC, and World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
The production of the State of Knowledge Review was enabled through ﬁnancial and in kind contributions from
the European Commission and the Government of France.

PAR

platform for
agrobiodiversity
research

Chapter authors
Lead coordinating authors: Cristina Romanelli, David Cooper, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Marina
Maiero, William B. Karesh, Danny Hunter and Christopher D. Golden
PART I
chapter  and chapter : Introduction to the state of knowledge review / Biodiversity and
human health linkages: concepts, determinants, drivers of change and approaches to integration
Lead authors: Cristina Romanelli, David Cooper, Marina Maiero, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Elena
Villalobos, Johannes Sommerfeld and Mariam Otmani del Barrio
Contributing authors: William B. Karesh, Catherine Machalaba, Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard, Daniel
Buss, Christopher D. Golden, and Lynne Gaﬃkin
PART II
chapter : Freshwater, wetlands, biodiversity and human health
Lead authors: Cristina Romanelli and Daniel Buss
Contributing authors: David Coates, Toby Hodgkin, Peter Stoett, and Ana Boischio
chapter : Biodiversity, air quality and human health
Lead authors: David Nowak, Sarah Jovan
Contributing authors: Cristina Branquinho, Soﬁa Augusto, Manuel C Ribeiro and Conor E. Kretsch
chapter : Agricultural biodiversity and food security
Lead authors: Toby Hodgkin and Danny Hunter
Contributing authors: Sylvia Wood, Nicole Demers
chapter : Biodiversity and nutrition
Lead authors: Danny Hunter, Barbara Burlingame, Roseline Remans
Contributing authors: Teresa Borelli, Bruce Cogill, Lidio Coradin, Christopher D. Golden, Ramni
Jamnadass, Katja Kehlenbeck, Gina Kennedy, Harriet Kuhnlein, Stepha McMullin, Samuel Myers,
Daniela Moura de Oliveira Beltrame, Alberto Jorge da Rocha Silva, Manika Saha, Lars Scheerer, Charlie
Shackleton, Camila Neves Soares Oliveira, Celine Termote, Corrado Teoﬁli, Shakuntala Thilsted, and
Roberto Valenti.
chapter : Infectious diseases
Lead authors: William B. Karesh and Pierre Formenty
Contributing authors: Christopher Allen, Colleen Burge, Marcia Chame dos Santos, Peter Daszak,

iv

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Piero Genovesi, Jacqueline Fletcher, Pierre Formenty, Drew Harvell, William B. Karesh, Richard Kock,
Elizabeth H. Loh, Juan Lubroth, Catherine Machalaba, Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard, Kristine M. Smith,
Peter J. Stoett, and Hillary S. Young.
chapter : Environmental microbial diversity and noncommunicable diseases
Lead Authors: Graham A.W. Rook and Rob Knight
chapter : Biodiversity and biomedical discovery
Lead author: Aaron Bernstein
chapter : Biodiversity, health care & pharmaceuticals
Lead authors: Alistair B.A. Boxall and Conor E. Kretsch
chapter : Traditional medicine
Lead authors: Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana and Suneetha M. Subramanian
Contributing authors: Anastasiya Timoshyna, Bertrand Graz, Danna Leaman, Rainer W. Bussman,
Hariramamurthi G., Darshan Shankar, Charlotte I.E.A. van’t Klooster, Gerard Bodeker, Yahaya Sekagya,
Wim Hemstra, Felipe Gomez, Bas Verschuuren, Eileen de Ravin, James Ligare, Andrew M. Reid and
Leif M. Petersen
chapter : Contribution of biodiversity and green spaces to mental and physical ﬁtness, and
cultural dimensions of health
Lead Authors: Pierre Horwitz and Conor Kretsch
Contributing Authors: Aaron Jenkins, Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Hamid, Ambra Burls, Kathryn Campbell,
May Carter, Wendy Henwood, Rebecca Lovell, Lai Choo Malone-Lee, Tim McCreanor, Helen MoewakaBarnes, Raul A. Montenegro, Margot Parkes, Jonathan Patz, Jenny J Roe, Cristina Romanelli, Katesuda
Sitthisuntikul, Carolyn Stephens, Mardie Townsend, Pam Wright
PART III
chapter : Climate change, biodiversity and human health
Lead authors: Cristina Romanelli, Anthony Capon, Marina Maiero, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum
Contributing authors: Colin Butler, Carlos Corvalan, Rita Issa, Ro McFarlane, and M. Cristina Tiradovon der Pahlen
chapter : Increasing resilience and disaster risk reduction: the value of biodiversity and
ecosystem approaches to resistance, resilience and relief
Lead Authors: R. David Stone, Emma Goring and Conor E. Kretsch
chapter : Population, consumption and the demand for resources; pathways to sustainability
Lead Authors: Cristina Romanelli, David Cooper
chapter : Integrating health and biodiversity: strategies, tools and further research
Lead Authors: David Cooper, Cristina Romanelli, Marina Maiero, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Carlos
Corvalan and Lynne Gaﬃkin, Contributing authors: Kevin Bardosh, Daniel Buss, Emma Goring, William
B. Karesh, Conor Kretsch, Christopher D. Golden, Catherine Machalaba, Mariam Otmani del Barrio
and Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

v

Table of Contents
Forewords _______________________________________

ix

Preface __________________________________________

xi

Executive Summary ________________________________ 1

Part I. Concepts, Themes & Directions
1. Introduction to the State of Knowledge
Review __________________________ 24
2. Biodiversity and human health linkages:
concepts, determinants, drivers of
change and approaches to integration 28
1. BIODIVERSITY, HEALTH AND
INTERACTIONS _______________________28

2. EQUITY AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF
HEALTH AND BIODIVERSITY ____________30
3. BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS
AND SERVICES ________________________33
4. DRIVERS OF CHANGE __________________37
5. INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY AND HUMAN
HEALTH: APPROACHES AND FRAMEWORKS 41
6. CONCLUSION: A THEMATIC APPROACH TO
COMMON LINKAGES __________________43

Part II. Thematic Areas in Biodiversity & Health
3. Freshwater, wetlands, biodiversity
and human health _________________ 46

4. Biodiversity, air quality and human
health ___________________________ 63

1. Introduction __________________________46

1. Introduction __________________________63

2. Water resources: an essential ecosystem
service _______________________________47

2. Air pollution and its eﬀects on human health _63

3. Dual threats to freshwater ecosystems
and human health ______________________49

vi

3. Impacts of vegetation on air quality ________64
4. The role of plant biodiversity in regulating
air quality_____________________________67

4. Impacts of agriculture on water
ecosystems and human health _____________54

5. Impacts of air quality on plant communities __71

5. Waterborne and water-related diseases ______56

6. Bioindicators __________________________72

6. Ways forward and additional considerations __61

7. Knowledge gaps and ways forward _________74

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

5. Agricultural biodiversity, food
security and human health _________ 75

8. Environmental microbial diversity
and noncommunicable diseases ____ 150

1. Introduction __________________________75

1. Introduction _________________________150

2. Agricultural biodiversity _________________76

2. The ‘hygiene hypothesis’: the updated concept 150

3. Agricultural production, land use, ecosystem
services and human health _______________78

3. Commensal microbiotas and environmental
biodiversity __________________________153

4. Food production, food security and human
health________________________________89

4. Loss of biodiversity: consequences for
human health ________________________153

5. Conclusions ___________________________95

5. Commensal microbiota and
noncommunicable diseases ______________157

6. Biodiversity and Nutrition __________ 97
1. Introduction __________________________97

6. Ways forward: preliminary recommendations
for global and sectoral policy _____________159

2. Biodiversity and food composition _________99

9. Biodiversity and biomedical discovery164

3. Systems diversity and human nutrition_____102

1. Introduction _________________________164

4. Wild foods and human nutrition __________107

2. Why biodiversity matters to medical discovery 164

5. Biodiversity and traditional food systems ___112
6. Biodiversity and the nutrition transition ____114

3. Biodiversity, the microbiome and
antimicrobial resistance _________________167

7. Nutrition, biodiversity and agriculture in the
context of urbanization _________________117

4. Future challenges: implications of
biodiversity loss for medical discovery _____168

8. Food cultures: local strategies with global
policy implications _____________________119

5. Ways forward: conservation as a public
health imperative ______________________169

9. Mainstreaming biodiversity for food and
nutrition into public policies _____________122

10. Biodiversity, health care
& pharmaceuticals _______________ 170

10. Global policy initiatives ________________124
11. Ways forward: toward a post-2015
development agenda __________________127

7. Infectious diseases _______________ 130
1. Introduction and background ____________130
2. Infectious disease ecology and drivers ______132
3. Challenges and approaches ______________144

1. Introduction _________________________170
2. Inputs and occurrence of active
pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) _________172
3. Impacts of pharmaceuticals on biodiversity
and ecosystem services _________________174
4. Future challenges: eﬀects of social and
environmental changes _________________177
5. Ways forward: reducing the impact of APIs
in the environment ____________________179

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

vii

11. Traditional medicine_____________ 180
1. Introduction _________________________180
2. Trends in demand for biological resources ___181
3. Traditional medicine and traditional
knowledge at a crossroads _______________188
4. Strengthening traditional health practices
and addressing loss of resources __________189

12. Contribution of biodiversity and green
spaces to mental and physical ﬁtness,
and cultural dimensions of health___ 200
1. Introduction _________________________200
2. Biodiversity and mental health ___________201
3. Biodiversity, green space, exercise and health _205

5. Challenges to the protection of traditional
medical knowledge ____________________193

4. The contribution of biodiversity to cultural
ecosystem services that support health and
well-being ___________________________212

6. Ways forward _________________________196

5. Conclusions and ways forward____________219

Part III: Cross-Cutting Issues, Tools & Ways Forward
13. Climate change, biodiversity and
human health __________________ 222

4. Global trends to 2050 and pathways to
sustainability _________________________254

1. Introduction _________________________222

5. Conclusion ___________________________257

2. Climate change challenges at the intersection
of biodiversity and human health _________227
3. Ways forward _________________________235

16. Integrating health and biodiversity:
strategies, tools and further
research _______________________ 258

4. Conclusion ___________________________236

1. Introduction _________________________258

14. Increasing resilience and disaster risk
reduction: the value of biodiversity
and ecosystem approaches to
resistance, resilience and relief ____ 238
1. Introduction _________________________238
2. Biodiversity and disaster risk reduction:
prevention and mitigation _______________240
3. Speciﬁc considerations for internally
displaced persons and refugees ___________246

15. Population, consumption and the
demand for resources; pathways
to sustainability ________________ 251
1. Introduction _________________________251
2. Current Trends and Alternatives __________252

2. Strategic objectives for the integration of
biodiversity and human health ___________258
3. Priority interventions for the integration of
biodiversity and human health ___________261
4. Towards the development of common
metrics and approaches _________________263
5: Keeping tabs: The need for monitoring and
accountability for evidence-based indicators
at the intersection of biodiversity and health 265
6. Assessing the economic value of biodiversity
and health: beneﬁts and limitations _______266
7. Shaping behaviour and engaging
communities for transformational change __269
8. Research needs _______________________271
9. Integrating biodiversity and health into the
sustainable development agenda __________272

3. Consumption – the demand for food and
energy ______________________________253

References ______________________________________

viii

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

276

CONOR KRETSCH

Forewords
Foreword by the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological
Diversity
Biodiversity, ecosystems and the essential services
that they deliver are central pillars for all life on
the planet, including human life. They are sources
of food and essential nutrients, medicines and
medicinal compounds, fuel, energy, livelihoods
and cultural and spiritual enrichment. They also
contribute to the provision of clean water and air,
and perform critical functions that range from
the regulation of pests and disease to that of
climate change and natural disasters. Each of these
functions has direct and indirect consequences for
our health and well-being, and each an important
component of the epidemiological puzzle that
confront our eﬀorts to stem the tide of infectious
and noncommunicable diseases.
The inexorable links between biodiversity,
ecosystems, the provision of these beneﬁts and
human health are deeply entrenched in the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, and reﬂected in its
2050 Vision: “Biodiversity is valued, conserved,
restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem
services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering
beneﬁts essential for all people”. They are central to
our common agenda for sustainable development.
As science continues to unravel our understanding
of the vital links between biodiversity, its persistent
loss, global health and development, we become
better equipped to develop robust, coherent and
coordinated solutions that jointly reduce threats

to human life and to the surrounding environment
that sustains it. Increasing our knowledge of
these complex relationships at all scales, and the
inﬂuences by which they are mediated, enables
us to develop effective solutions capable of
strengthening ecosystem resilience and mitigating
the forces that impede their ability to deliver lifesupporting services. This state of knowledge
review is a constructive step in this direction.
I am especially grateful to the World Health
Organization and all partners and experts who
generously contributed to bring this to fruition.
We must ensure that interventions made in the
name of biodiversity, health or other sectors do
not compound but rather help to face the public
health and conservation challenges posed by rising
socio-demographic pressures, travel, trade and
the transformation of once natural landscapes
into intensive agricultural zones and urban and
peri-urban habitats. We are all stakeholders
in the pursuit of a healthier, more sustainable
planet capable of meeting the growing needs of
present and future generations. All sectors, policymakers, scientists, educators, communities and
citizens alike can – and must – contribute to the
development of common solutions to the common
threats that we face. Only in this way can we truly
pave the road toward a more equitable, and truly
sustainable, agenda in 2015 and beyond.

Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias
Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

ix

Foreword by the Director, Public Health, Environmental and Social
Determinants of Health, World Health Organization
At WHO, we are aware of the growing body of
evidence that biodiversity loss is happening
at unprecedented rates. There is increasing
recognition that this is a fundamental risk to the
healthy and stable ecosystems that sustain all
aspects of our societies.
Human health is not immune from this threat. All
aspects of human wellbeing depend on ecosystem
goods and services, which in turn depend on
biodiversity. Biodiversity loss can destabilize
ecosystems, promote outbreaks of infectious
disease, and undermine development progress,
nutrition security and protection from natural
disasters.
Protecting public health from these risks lies
outside of the traditional roles of the health
sector. It relies on working with partners engaged
in conservation, and the sustainable use and
management of natural resources.

epidemic infectious diseases such as the Ebola
virus; and the connection between biodiversity,
nutritional diversity and health. It also covers
the potential benefits of closer partnerships
between conservation and health, from improved
surveillance of infectious diseases in wildlife and
human populations, to promoting access to green
spaces to promote physical activity and mental
health. Of course, it also highlights the many areas
in which further research is needed.
We hope this joint report will be able to help
policy makers to recognize the intrinsic value of
biodiversity and its role as a critical foundation
for sustainable development and human health
and well-being.

In this regard, WHO appreciates the leadership
that the Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity has shown in promoting the
linkages between biodiversity and health.

In particular, we hope the report provides a useful
reference for the Sustainable Development Goals
and post-2015 development agenda, which
represents an unique opportunity to promote
integrated approaches to biodiversity and health
by highlighting that biodiversity contributes
to human well-being, and highlighting that
biodiversity needs protection for development to
be sustainable.

The report synthesizes the available information
on the most important inter-linkages; for example
between biodiversity, ecosystem stability, and

WHO looks forward to working jointly with our
CBD colleagues, and the wider conservation
community, to support this important agenda.

Dr. Maria Neira
Director, Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization

x

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

GLEN BOWES

Preface
Preface by the Chair of the Rockefeller-Lancet Commission on
Planetary Health
The last 50 years have seen unprecedented improvements in human health, as measured by most
conventional metrics. This human ﬂourishing has, however, been at the cost of extensive degradation
to the Earth’s ecological and biogeochemical systems. The impacts of transformations to these
systems; including accelerating climatic disruption, land degradation, growing water scarcity, ﬁsheries
degradation, pollution, and biodiversity loss; have already begun to negatively impact human health.
Left unchecked these changes threaten to reverse the global health gains of the last several decades
and will likely become the dominant threat to health over the next century. But there is also much
cause for hope. The interconnected nature of people and the planet mean that solutions that beneﬁt
both the biosphere and human health lie within reach. Improving the evidence base of links between
environment and health, identifying and communicating examples of co-beneﬁts and building interdisciplinary relationships across research themes are key challenges which must be addressed, to help
build a post-2015 agenda where a healthy biosphere is recognised as a precondition for human health
and prosperity.
In response to these challenges, The Rockefeller Foundation and The Lancet, have formed a Commission
to review the scientiﬁc basis for linking human health to the underlying integrity of Earth’s natural
systems (The Commission on Planetary Health) and set out recommendations for action to the health
community and policymakers working in sectors that inﬂuence health, development and the biosphere.
The Commission has been underway since July 2014, and will conclude its work through the publication
of a peer-reviewed Commission Report in The Lancet in July 2015.
The Commission welcomes this timely and important State of Knowledge Review from the Convention
on Biological Diversity and the World Health Organization. The greatest challenge to protecting
Planetary Health over the coming century is to develop the capability of human civilisations, to interpret,
understand, and respond to the risks that we ourselves have created and this Review is a major advance
in our understanding of these risks and the beneﬁts of actions to reduce them.
Professor Sir Andy Haines
Chair of the Lancet-Rockefeller Foundation Commission on Planetary Health and Professor of Public Health
and Professor of Primary Care at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

xi

Biodiversity and
Nutrition

Agricultural
biodiversity

Health “is a state of

complete physical, mental
and social well-being and
not merely the absence of
disease or inƥrmityŚ.
Mental health

Biological diversity

Food & Water
security

(biodiversity) is “the variability
among living organisms from
all sources including, inter
alia, terrestrial, marine and
other aquatic ecosystems and
the ecological complexes of
which they are part; this
includes diversity within
species, between species and
of ecosystems.Ś

Biodiversity
underpins ecosystem
functioning and the provision
of goods and services that are
essential to human health and
well being.

Sustainable
development

Hea
outco

Biomedical/
pharmaceutical
discovery

Traditional
medicine

The links between

biodiversity and
health are manifested at

various spatial and temporal
scales. Biodiversity and
human health, and the
respective policies and
activities, are interlinked in
various ways.

Biodiv

human health
Disaster risk

Direct drivers of
Air quality

Water quality

Climate
change

Women and men

have diƤerent roles in the
conservation and use of
biodiversity and varying
health impacts.

alth
omes

versity

biodiversity loss include
land-use change, habitat loss,
over-exploitation, pollution,
invasive species and climate
change. Many of these drivers
aƤect human health directly
and through their impacts on
biodiversity.

Microbial
biodiversity

Ecosystems

Human population
health is determined, to a
large extent, by social, economic and environmental
factors.

Infectious
diseases

The social and
natural sciences are

important contributors to
biodiversity and health
research and policy. Integrative approaches such as the
Ecosystem Approach, Ecohealth and One Health unite
diƤerent ƥelds and require
the development of mutual
understanding and cooperation across disciplines.

GLEN BOWES

Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
1. Health “is a state of complete physical,
mental and social well-being and
not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity”. This is the definition of the
World Health Organization. Health status
has important social, economic, behavioural
and environmental determinants and wideranging impacts. Typically health has been
viewed largely in a human-only context.
However, there is increasing recognition of
the broader health concept that encompasses
other species, our ecosystems and the integral
ecological underpinnings of many drivers or
protectors of health risks.
2. Biological diversity (biodiversity) is “the
variability among living organisms from
all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial,
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and
the ecological complexes of which they are
part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems.” This
deﬁnition of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (Article 2) reﬂects diﬀerent levels
of biodiversity (including genetic diversity,
species and ecosystems) and the complexities
of biotic and abiotic interactions. The
attributes and interactions of biotic and
abiotic components determine ecosystem
processes and their properties. The eﬀective
management of ecosystems as part of
comprehensive public health measures
requires that these various complex linkages
and interactions be identiﬁed and understood.

3. Biodiversity underpins ecosystem
functioning and the provision of goods
and services that are essential to human
health and well-being. Ecosystems,
including our food production systems,
depend on a whole host of organisms:
primary producers, herbivores, carnivores,
decomposers, pollinators, pathogens,
natural enemies of pests. Services provided
by ecosystems include food, clean air and
both the quantity and quality of fresh water,
medicines, spiritual and cultural values,
climate regulation, pest and disease regulation,
and disaster risk reduction. Biodiversity is a
key environmental determinant of human
health; the conservation and the sustainable
use of biodiversity can beneﬁt human health
by maintaining ecosystem services and by
maintaining options for the future.
4. The links between biodiversity and
health are manifested at various spatial
and temporal scales. At a planetary scale,
ecosystems and biodiversity play a critical role
in determining the state of the Earth System,
regulating its material and energy ﬂows and its
responses to abrupt and gradual change. At a
more intimate level, the human microbiota –
the symbiotic microbial communities present
on our gut, skin, respiratory and urino-genital
tracts, contribute to our nutrition, can help
regulate our immune system, and prevent
infections.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

1

5. Biodiversity and human health, and
the respective policies and activities,
are interlinked in various ways. First,
biodiversity gives rise to health benefits.
For example, the variety of species and
genotypes provide nutrients and medicines.
Biodiversity also underpins ecosystem
functioning which provides services such as
water and air puriﬁcation, pest and disease
control and pollination. However, it can also
be a source of pathogens leading to negative
health outcomes. A second type of interaction
arises from drivers of change that aﬀect both
biodiversity and health in parallel. For example,
air and water pollution can lead to biodiversity
loss and have direct impacts on health. A third
type of interaction arises from the impacts of
health sector interventions on biodiversity
and of biodiversity-related interventions
on human health. For example, the use of
pharmaceuticals may lead to the release of
active ingredients in the environment and
damage species and ecosystems, which in turn
may have negative knock-on eﬀects on human
health. Protected areas or hunting bans could
deny access of local communities to bushmeat
and other wild sourcs of food and medicines
with negative impacts on health. Positive
interactions of this type are also possible; for
example the establishment of protected areas
may protect water supplies with positive
health beneﬁts.
6. Direct drivers of biodiversity loss include
land-use change, habitat loss, overexploitation, pollution, invasive species
and climate change. Many of these
drivers aﬀect human health directly and
through their impacts on biodiversity. The
continued decline of biodiversity, including
loss or degradation of ecosystems, is reducing
the ability of biodiversity and ecosystems to
provide essential life-sustaining services and,
in many cases, leads to negative outcomes for
health and well-being. Ecosystem degradation
may lead to both biodiversity loss and
increased risk from infectious diseases. In
turn, the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss
are demographic change and large-scale social

2

and economic processes. Social change and
development trends (such as urbanization),
poverty and gender also influence these
drivers of change. Macro-economic policies
and structures and public policies that provide
perverse incentives or fail to incorporate the
value of biodiversity often compound the dual
threat to biodiversity and public health.
7. Human population health is determined,
to a large extent, by social, economic and
environmental factors. Social determinants
of health include poverty, gender, sex, age,
and rural versus urban areas. Vulnerable
people, and groups (such as women and
the poor) who tend to be more reliant on
biodiversity and ecosystem services suﬀer
disproportionately from biodiversity loss
and have less access to social protection
mechanisms (for example, access to
healthcare). A social justice perspective is
needed to address the various dimensions of
equity in the biodiversity and health dynamic.
Vulnerability and adaptation assessments are
needed and should be tailored to the contexts
of these populations.
8. Women and men have diﬀerent roles in the
conservation and use of biodiversity and
varying health impacts. Access to, use, and
management of biodiversity has diﬀerential
gender health impacts shaped by respective
cultural values and norms which in turn
determine roles, responsibilities, obligations,
beneﬁts and rights. Institutional capacity and
legal frameworks often inadequately reﬂect
diﬀerential gender roles. There is also a lack
of gender disaggregated data on biodiversity
access, use and control and on the diﬀerential
health impacts of biodiversity change.
9. The social and natural sciences are
important contributors to biodiversity
and health research and policy. Integrative
approaches, such as the ecosystem
approach, ecohealth and One Health,
unite different fields and require the
development of mutual understanding
and cooperation across disciplines.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Multi-disciplinary research and approaches
can provide valuable insights on the drivers
of disease emergence and spread, contribute to
identifying previous patterns of disease risk,
and help predict future risks through the lens
of social-ecological systems. Such challenges
necessitate engagement of many stakeholders,
including governments, civil society, and nongovernmental and international organizations.
Integrative approaches such as these make it
possible to maximize resource eﬃciency as
well as conservation, health and development
outcomes. While their value is increasingly
recognized for infectious disease prevention
and control, their wider applications and
beneﬁts can also extend to other areas. For
example, to the assessment of environmental
health exposures and outcomes, better
understanding of the health services provided
by biodiversity, and of how anthropogenic
changes to an ecosystem or biodiversity may
inﬂuence disease risks.

ERIC SALES / ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK / FLICKR

WATER, AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH

Access to clean water is fundamental to human health
and a priority for sustainable development. Yet,
almost 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking
water and 2 million annual deaths are attributable to
unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene. Biodiversity and
ecosystems play a major role in regulating the quantity

and quality of water supply but are themselves
degraded by pollution.
10. Ecosystems provide clean water that
underpin many aspects of human health.
All terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
play a role in underpinning the water cycle
including regulating nutrient cycling and soil
erosion. Many ecosystems can also play a role
in managing pollution; the water puriﬁcation
services they provide underpin water quality.
Mountain ecosystems are of particular
signiﬁcance in this regard. Many protected
areas are established primarily to protect water
supplies for people.
11. Freshwater ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes
and wetlands, face disproportionately high
levels of threats due largely to demands on
water and impacts of human activities such
as dam construction and mining. In some
regions, up to 95% of wetlands have been lost
and two-thirds of the world’s largest rivers
are now moderately to severely fragmented
by dams and reservoirs. Freshwater species
have declined at a rate greater than any other
biome, with the sharpest decline in tropical
freshwater biomes. More than one-third
of the accessible renewable freshwater on
earth is consumptively used for agriculture,
industrial and domestic use, which often leads
to chemical pollution of natural water sources.
Other human activity, such as mining, can also
lead to bioaccumulation and biomagniﬁcation.
12. Impaired water quality results in
significant social and economic costs.
Ecosystem degradation–for example through
eutrophication caused by excessive nutrients–
is a major cause of declines in water quality.
Left untreated, poor quality water results in
massive burdens on human health, with the
most pronounced impacts on women, children
and the poor. Maintaining or restoring healthy
ecosystems (for example, through protected
areas) is a cost-eﬀective and sustainable way
to improve water quality while also beneﬁtting
biodiversity.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

3

13. Water-related infrastructure has positive
and negative impacts on biodiversity,
livelihoods, and human health. Altered
waterways (e.g. dams, irrigation canals,
urban drainage systems) can provide valuable
beneﬁts to human communities, but may be
costly to build and maintain, and in some
cases increase risks (e.g. ﬂood risk from coastal
wetlands degradation). They can also diminish
native biodiversity and sometimes increase
the incidence of water-borne or water-related
illnesses such as schistosomiasis. Approaches
integrating beneﬁts of both physical/built
and natural infrastructure can provide more
sustainable and cost-eﬀective solutions.

UNDP BANGLADESH / FLICKR

buildings, ecosystems in cities alter energy
use and consequent greenhouse gas emissions;
(3) Emissions – many ecosystems emit volatile
organic carbons (VOCs) including terpenes
and arenes. While sometimes considered
as pollutants, many natural VOCs play a
critical role in atmospheric chemistry and air
quality regulation. Ecosystems also release
pollen, sometimes associated with acute
respiratory problems. Burning of vegetation
is also associated with signiﬁcant pollution
emissions.

Air pollution is one of the most significant
environmental health risks worldwide, responsible for
seven million deaths in 2012. Bronchial asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are on the rise.
Cardiovascular disease, immune disorders, various
cancers, and disorders of the eye, ear, nose and throat
are also aﬀected by air pollution. Air pollution also
aﬀects biodiversity; it can reduce plant biodiversity
and aﬀect other ecosystem services, such as clean
water and carbon storage.
14. Ecosystems may aﬀect air quality and have
primarily beneﬁcial outcomes for human
health. Ecosystems affect air quality in
three main ways: (1) Deposition – ecosystems
directly remove air pollution, through
absorption or intake of gases through leaves,
and through direct deposition of particulate
matters on plant surfaces; (2) Changes in
meteorological patterns – as ecosystems aﬀect
local temperature, precipitation, air ﬂows,
etc., they also aﬀect air quality and pollutant
emissions. By altering climate and shading

4

15. Components of biodiversity can be used
as bioindicators of known human health
stressors, as well as in air and water quality
mapping, monitoring, and regulation.
Lichens are among the most widely utilized
and well-developed indicators of air quality
to date and are making headway as reliable
indicators for air quality regulation. The shift
in species is predictable and often correlates
highly with deposition measures, making
lichens an accurate, cost-eﬀective tool for
mapping and monitoring. Other groups of
organisms with high local biological diversity
(e.g., insects and other arthropods) have high
potential as bioindicators because they have
the capacity to provide more ﬁne-grained
information about the state of ecosystems;
they are also relatively easy to survey. Water
quality can be monitored through chemical
analysis but long-term trends in freshwater
ecosystems are perhaps better monitored
using the diversity of aquatic organisms (e.g.,
benthic invertebrates) as proxy for water
quality and ecosystem health.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

BIODIVERSITY, FOOD
PRODUCTION AND NUTRITION

control, nutrient cycling, erosion control and
water supply.

BIOVERSITY

17. The loss of diversity from agro-ecosystems
is increasing the vulnerability and reducing
the sustainability of many production
systems and has had negative effects
on human health. While there have been
significant increases in food production
through the introduction of higher yielding
uniform varieties and breeds, loss of genetic
diversity in production systems through
monocropping of uniform crop varieties or
animal breeds has led to instances of large
production losses and, in some cases, has had
signiﬁcantly negative health consequences.
Loss of diversity has also resulted in the
reduced provision of regulating and supporting
ecosystem services, requiring additional
chemical inputs and creating negative feedback
loops.

Agricultural productivity has increased substantially
over the last 50 years yet some 800 million people
are food insecure. It is estimated that by 2050 food
production will have to feed over 9 billion people, many
of whom will be wealthier and demand more food with
proportionately more meat and dairy products that
have greater ecological footprints.
Biodiversity underpins the productivity and resilience
of agricultural and other ecosystems. However, land
use change and agriculture are dominant causes of
biodiversity loss.
16. Biodiversity in and around agricultural
production systems makes essential
contributions to food security and health.
Biodiversity is the source of the components
of production (crops, livestock, farmed ﬁsh),
and the genetic diversity within these that
ensures continuing improvements in food
production, allows adaptation to current
needs and ensures adaptability to future ones.
Agricultural biodiversity is also essential for
agricultural production systems, underpinning
ecosystem services such as pollination, pest

18. The use of chemical inputs, particularly
pesticides, has had severe negative
consequences for wildlife, human health
and for agricultural biodiversity. While
the control of disease vectors such as malaria
has generated health benefits, the use of
pesticides, especially in agriculture, has led
to serious environmental pollution, aﬀected
human health (25 million people per year
suﬀer acute pesticide poisoning in developing
countries) and caused the death of many
non-target animals, plants and ﬁsh. The use
of agricultural biodiversity to help cope with
pests and diseases and to increase soil quality
is a win-win option which produces beneﬁts to
human health and to biodiversity.
19. Pollination is essential to food security
generally and to the production of many
of the most nutritious foods in particular.
Pollinators play a significant role in the
production of approximately one third of
global food supply. Pollination also aﬀects
the quantity, nutritional content, quality, and
variety of foods available. Global declines of
pollinator species diversity and in numbers
of pollinators have critical implications for

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

5

S. PADULOSI / BIOVERSITY

20. Increasing sustainable production and
meeting the challenges associated with
climate change will require the increased
use of agricultural biodiversity. Climate
change is already having an impact the
nutritional quality and safety of food and
increasing the vulnerability of food insecure
individuals and households. The increased
use of agricultural biodiversity will play an
essential part in the adaptation and mitigation
actions needed to cope with climate change
and ensuring continued sustainable supplies
of healthy food, providing adaptive capacity,
diverse options to cope with future change
and enhanced resilience in food production
systems.

21. Agricultural practices, which make
improved use of agricultural biodiversity,
have been identiﬁed and are being used
around the world. Their potential value needs
to be more widely recognized and their adoption
more strongly supported through research and
support for appropriate policy and economic
regimes, including appropriate support to
small-scale producers. Inter-disciplinary
analysis and cross-sectoral collaboration
(among the agriculture, environment, health
and nutrition communities) is essential to
ensure the integration of biodiversity into
policies, programmes and national and
regional plans of action on food and nutrition
security.

6

Malnutrition is the single largest contributor to the global
burden of disease aﬀecting citizens of every country in
the world from the least developed to the most. Two
billion people are estimated to be deﬁcient in one or more
micronutrients. At the same time, the consumption of
poor-quality processed foods, together with low physical
activity, has contributed to the dramatic emergence of
obesity and associated chronic diseases.

B. VINCETI / BIOVERSITY

food security, agricultural productivity and,
potentially, human nutrition.

A diversity of species, varieties and breeds, as
well as wild sources (ﬁsh, plants, bushmeat,
insects and fungi) underpins dietary diversity
and good nutrition. Variety-speciﬁc diﬀerences
within staple crops can often be the diﬀerence
between nutrient adequacy and nutrient
deficiency in populations and individuals.
Signiﬁcant nutrient content diﬀerences in meat
and milk among breeds of the same animal species
have also been documented. Wildlife, from aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems, is a critical source of
calories, protein and micronutrients like iron and
zinc for more than a billion people. Fish provide
more than 3 billion people with important sources
of protein, vitamins and minerals.
22. Access to wildlife in terrestrial, marine,
and freshwater systems is critical to
human nutrition, and global declines will
present major public health challenges for
resource-dependent human populations,
particularly in low- and middle- income
countries. Even a single portion of local
traditional animal-source foods may result
in signiﬁcantly increased clinical levels of
energy, protein, vitamin A, vitamin B6/B12,
vitamin D, vitamin E, riboﬂavin, iron, zinc,
magnesium and fatty acids–thus reducing
the risk of micronutrient deﬁciency. The use

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

of wild foods increases during the traditional
‘hungry season’ when crops are not yet ready
for harvest, and during times of unexpected
household shocks such as crop failure or
illness. However, wildlife populations are
in worldwide decline as a result of habitat
destruction, over-exploitation, pollution and
invasive species. Conservation strategies can
therefore provide signiﬁcant public health
dividends.
23. The harvesting and trade of wild edible
plants and animals provides additional
beneﬁts but also risks. The collection and
trade of wild foods indirectly contributes to
health and well-being by providing income for
household needs, particularly in less developed
countries. Aggregating across numerous local
level studies, estimates of the annual value of
the bushmeat trade alone in west and central
Africa range between US$42 and 205 million
(at 2000 values). This scale of economy poses
important subsistence benefits. Hunting,
butchering, consumption, global trade, and/
or contact in markets with other species can
also presents risks of transmission and spread
of infectious disease

nutrient deficiencies (e.g. vitamin A and
iron), they cannot provide the full range of
nutrients needed. Food based approaches can
be supported by a greater focus on nutrition
and biological diversity in agricultural, food
system and value chain programs and policies
(compared to a dominant focus on a few staple
crops), including by promoting traditional
food systems and food cultures.
25. Some dietary patterns that oﬀer substantial
health beneﬁts could also reduce climate
change and pressures on biodiversity. The
global dietary transition towards diets higher
in reﬁned sugars, reﬁned fats, oils and meats,
are increasing the environmental footprint
of the food system and also increasing the
incidence of type II diabetes, coronary heart
disease and other chronic non-communicable
diseases. Some traditional diets, such as the
Mediterranean diet, and alternative vegetarian
or near-vegetarian diets, if widely adopted,
would reduce global agricultural greenhouse
gas emissions, reduce land clearing and
resultant species extinctions, and help prevent
diet-related chronic non-communicable
diseases.

24. Food based approaches are needed to
help combat malnutrition and promote
health. A healthy, balanced diet requires
a variety of foods to supply the full range
of nutrients needed (vitamins, minerals,
individual amino acids and fatty acids, and
other beneﬁcial bioactive food components)
While fortiﬁcation and bio-fortiﬁcation may
be cost-eﬀective solutions to address speciﬁc

NIAID / FLICKR

S. LANDERSZ / BIOVERSITY

MICROBIAL DIVERSITY AND
NONCOMMUNICABLE DISEASES

Non-communicable diseases are becoming prevalent
in all parts of the world. Some NCDs including
autoimmune diseases, type 1 diabetes, multiple
sclerosis, allergic disorders, eczema, asthma,
inﬂammatory bowel diseases and Crohn’s disease may

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

7

be linked to depleted microbial diversity in the human
microbiome.
26. Humans, like all complex plants and animals
have microbiota without which they could
not survive. The human microbiome contains
ten times more microorganisms than cells that
comprise the human body. These occur inter
alia on the skin, and in the gut, airways and
urogenital tracts. The biodiversity of bacteria,
viruses, fungi, archaea and protozoa of which
microbes are comprised, and the interactions
of microbes within the complex human
microbiome, inﬂuence both the physiology
of and susceptibility to disease and play an
important role in the processes that link
environmental changes and human health.
The realization that humans are not merely
“individuals”, but rather complex ecosystems
may be one of the major advances in our
understanding of human health in recent
years, with signiﬁcant implications for both
ecology and human health.
27. Environmental microbial ecosystems are
in constant dialogue and interchange
with the human symbiotic ecosystems. 
Microbes from the environment supplement
and diversify the composition of the symbiotic
microbial communities that we pick up
from mothers and family, which in turn
play signiﬁcant roles from a physiological
perspective.  Our physiological requirements
for microbial biodiversity are evolutionarily
determined. In addition to supplementation
of the symbiotic microbiota by organisms from
the natural environment, the adaptability
of the human microbiota (for example, to
enable digestion of novel foods) depends
upon acquiring organisms with the relevant
capabilities, or genes encoding necessary
enzymes from the environment by horizontal
gene transfer. Therefore, we need appropriate
contact with potential sources of genetic
innovation and diversity, and our adaptability
is threatened by loss of biodiversity in the gene
reservoir of environmental microbes.

8

28. Several categories of organism with
which we co-evolved play a role in setting
up the mechanisms that “police” and
regulate the immune system. In addition
to the microbiota, some other organisms
(the “Old Infections”) that caused persistent
infections or carrier states in hunter-gatherer
communities were always present during
human evolution, and so had to be tolerated by
the immune system. Therefore they co-evolved
roles in inducing the mechanisms that regulate
the immune system, terminate immune
activity when it is no longer needed, and block
inappropriate attack on self (autoimmunity),
allergens (allergic disorders) or gut contents
(inﬂammatory bowel disease). Some of these
immunoregulation-inducing organisms,
for example a heavy load of helminths, can
have detrimental eﬀects on health, and so
are eliminated by modern medicine in highincome settings. This increases the importance
of the immunoregulatory role of microbiota
and the microbial environment in high-income
settings, where these categories of organism
need to compensate for loss of these “Old
Infections”.
29. Reduced contact of people with the
natural environment and biodiversity and
biodiversity loss in the wider environment
leads to reduced diversity in the human
microbiota, which itself can lead to immune
dysfunction and disease. The immune
system needs an input of microbial diversity
from the natural environment in order to
establish the mechanisms that regulate it.
When this regulation fails there may be
immune responses to forbidden targets such
as our own tissues (autoimmune diseases;
type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis), harmless
allergens and foods (allergic disorders,
eczema, asthma, hay fever) or gut contents
(inflammatory bowel diseases, ulcerative
colitis, Crohn’s disease). Urbanization and
loss of access to green spaces are increasingly
discussed in relation to these NCDs. Half of
the world’s population already lives in urban
areas and this number is projected to increase
markedly in the next half century, with the

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

most rapid increase in low- and middleincome countries. Combined, these ﬁndings
suggest an important opportunity for crossover between health promotion and education
on biodiversity.
30. Failing immunoregulatory mechanisms
partly attributable to reduced contact
with the natural environment and
biodiversity lead to poor control of
background inﬂammation. In high-income
urban settings, there is often continuous
background inflammation even in the
absence of a speciﬁc chronic inﬂammatory
disorder. But persistently raised circulating
levels of inﬂammatory mediators predispose
to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome,
type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular
disease and psychiatric disorders. Moreover,
in high-income settings several cancers
rise in parallel with the increases in chronic
inflammatory disorders, because chronic
inﬂammation drives mutation, and provides
growth factors and mediators that stimulate
tumour vascularisation and metastasis. We
need to maintain the microbial biodiversity
of the environment in order to drive essential
regulation of the immune system.
31. Understanding the factors that inﬂuence
functional and compositional changes in
the human microbiome can contribute to
the development of therapies that address
the gut microbiota and corresponding
diseases. Disturbances in the composition
and diversity of the gut microbiota are
associated with a wide range of immunological,
gastrointestinal, metabolic and psychiatric
disorders. The required microbial diversity is
obtained from the individual’s mother, from
other people and from animals (farms, dogs)
and the natural environment. The major
inﬂuences on this diversity are antibiotics,
diet, and diversity loss in the environment
due to urbanisation and modern agricultural
methods. We need to document the microbial
biodiversity and the causes of diversity loss,
preserve diversity, and identify the beneﬁcial
organisms and genes. These may be exploited

for deliberate modiﬁcation and diversiﬁcation
of the microbiota, which is emerging as an
exciting new approach to prevention and cure
of many human diseases.
32. Innovative design of cities and dwellings
might be able to increase exposure to
the microbial biodiversity that our
physiological systems have evolved to
expect. In high-income settings several very
large studies reveal signiﬁcant health beneﬁts
of living near to green spaces. The beneﬁts
are greatest for people of low socioeconomic
status. Recent data suggest that the eﬀect is
not due primarily to exercise, and exposure
to environmental microbial biodiversity is a
plausible explanation. This provides a strong
medical rationale for increased provision of
green spaces in modern cities. It might be
suﬃcient to supplement a few large green
spaces with multiple small green spaces that
deliver appropriate microbial diversity.
33. Considering “microbial diversity” as
an ecosystem service provider may
contribute to bridging the chasm between
ecology and medicine/immunology, by
considering microbial diversity in public
health and conservation strategies aimed
at maximizing services obtained from
ecosystems. The relationships our individual
bodies have with our microbiomes are a
microcosm for the vital relationships our
species shares with countless other organisms
with which we share the planet.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

9

CSIRO

INFECTIOUS DISEASES

Infectious diseases cause over one billion human
infections per year, with millions of deaths each year
globally. Extensive health and ﬁnancial burden is seen
from both established and emerging infectious diseases.
Infectious diseases also aﬀect plants and animals, which
may pose threats to agriculture and water supplies with
additional impacts on human health.
34. Pathogens play a complex role in
biodiversity and health, with beneﬁts in
some contexts and threats to biodiversity
and human health in others. The
relationships between infectious pathogens
and host species are complex; disease and
microbial composition can serve vital
regulating roles in one species or communities
while having detrimental eﬀects on others.
Microbial dynamics, and their implications
for biodiversity and health, are multifactorial;
similarly, the role of biodiversity in pathogen
maintenance and not fully understood.
35. Human-caused changes in ecosystems,
such as modified landscapes, intensive
agriculture, and antimicrobial use, are
increasing infectious disease transmission
risks and impact. Approximately twothirds of known human infectious diseases
are shared with animals, and the majority
of recently emerging diseases are associated
with wildlife. Vector-borne diseases also
account for a large share of endemic diseases.
Increasing anthropogenic activity is resulting
in enhanced opportunities for contact at the
human/animal/environment interface that
is facilitating disease spread, and through
changing vector abundance, composition, and/

10

or distribution. Changes in land use and food
production practices are among leading drivers
of disease emergence in humans. At the same
time, pathogen dynamics are changing. While
pathogen evolution is a natural phenomenon,
factors such as global travel, climate change,
and use of antimicrobial agents are rapidly
aﬀecting pathogen movement, host ranges,
and persistence and virulence. Beyond direct
infection risks for human and animals, such
changes also have implications for food
security and medicine.
36. Areas of high biodiversity may have high
numbers of pathogens, yet biodiversity
may serve as a protective factor for
preventing transmission, and maintaining
ecosystems may help reduce exposure to
infectious agents. While the absolute number
of pathogens may be high in areas of high
biodiversity, disease transmission to humans
is highly determined by contact, and in some
cases, biodiversity may serve to protect against
pathogen exposure through host species
competition and other regulating functions.
Limiting human activity in biodiverse habitats
may reduce human exposure to high-risk
settings for zoonotic pathogens while serving
to protect biodiversity.
37. Infectious diseases threaten wild species
as well as the people that depend on them.
The health burden of infectious diseases
is not limited to humans and domestic
species; infectious diseases pose threat to
biodiversity conservation as well. Pathogen
spill-over can occur from one wild species
to another, potentially causing an outbreak
if the species or population is susceptible to
the pathogen; similarly, diseases of domestic
animals and humans can also be infectious
to wild species, as seen with the local
extinctions of African Wild Dog populations
following the introduction of rabies virus
from domestic dogs. Ebola virus has also
been recognized as causing severe declines in
great ape populations, including the criticallyendangered wild lowland gorilla troops. Past
Ebola outbreaks in great apes have preceded

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

human outbreaks, suggesting a sentinel
or predictive value of wildlife monitoring
to aid in early detection or prevention of
human infections. In addition to the direct
potential morbidity and mortality threats
from infectious diseases to the survival of
wild populations, infection-related population
declines may compromise health-beneﬁtting
ecosystem services that wildlife provide. For
example, major declines recently seen from
fungal infections associated with White Nose
Syndrome in North American bats and chytrid
in amphibians may aﬀect the pest control
functions that these animals provide.

Many of the diseases that aﬄicted or killed most
people a century ago are today largely curable or
preventable today thanks to medicines, many of which
are derived from biodiversity. Yet, in many instances,
the very organisms that have given humanity vital
insights into human diseases, or are the sources of
human medications, are endangered with extinction
because of human actions.
39. Biodiversity has been an irreplaceable
resource for the discovery of medicines
and biomedical breakthroughs that have
alleviated human suﬀering. Drugs derived
from natural products may perhaps be the
most direct and concrete bond that many
may ﬁnd between biodiversity and medicine.
Among the breakthroughs that dramatically
improved human health in the twentieth
century, antibiotics rank near the top. The
penicillins as well as nine of the thirteen
other major classes of antibiotics in use,
derive from microorganisms. Between 1981
and 2010, 75% (78 of 104) of antibacterials
newly approved by the USFDA can be traced
back to natural product origins. Percentages
of antivirals and antiparasitics derived from
natural products approved during that same
period are similar or higher. Reliance upon
biodiversity for new drugs continues to this
day in nearly every domain of medicine.

38. The rapidly growing number of invasive
species cause signiﬁcant impacts on human
health, and this eﬀect is expected to further
increase in the future, due to synergistic
eﬀects of biological invasions and climate
change. Preventing and mitigating biological
invasions is not only is important to protecting
biodiversity, but can also protect human health.
Through trade and travel, the number of invasive
species is increasing globally as a consequence
of the globalization of the economies, and the
increase is expected to intensify in the future
due to synergistic eﬀects with climate change.
Invasive species not only impact biodiversity,
but also aﬀect human health causing diseases or
infections, exposing humans to bites and stings,
causing allergic reactions, and facilitating the
spread of pathogens.

GENEVIÈVE ANDERSON

MEDICINES: THE CONTRIBUTION
OF BIODIVERSITY TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
PHARMACEUTICALS

40. For many of the most challenging health
problems facing humanity today, we look to
biodiversity for new treatments or insights
into their cures. Most of the medicinal
potential of nature potential has yet to be
tapped. Plants have been the single greatest
source of natural product drugs to date, and
although an estimated 400,000 plant species
populate the earth, only a fraction of these
have been studied for pharmacologic potential.
One of the largest plant specimen banks, the
natural products repository at the National
Cancer Institute, contains ~60,000 specimens,
for instance. Other realms of the living world,
especially the microbial and marine, are only
beginning to be studied and hold vast potential
for new drugs given both their diversity and
the medicines already discovered from them.
Many species, potential sources of medicines
are threatened by extinction.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

11

41. Greater even than what individual species
offer to medicine through molecules
they contain or traits they possess, an
understanding of biodiversity and ecology
yield irreplaceable insights into how life
works that bear upon current epidemic
diseases. Consider the multiple pandemics
that have resulted from antibiotic resistance.
Human medicine tends to use a paradigm for
treating infections unknown in nature which
is treating one pathogen with one antibiotic.
Most multicellular life (and a good share of
single cellular life) produces compounds with
antibiotic properties but never uses them in
isolation. Infections are attacked, or more
often prevented, through the secretion of
several compounds at once.

C. KRESTCH

TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

Millions of people rely on traditional medicine
that is dependent on biological resources, well
functioning ecosystems and on the associated context
speciﬁc knowledge of local health practitioners. In
local communities, health practitioners trained in
traditional and non–formal systems of medicine often
play a crucial role in linking health-related knowledge
to aﬀordable healthcare delivery.
42. Traditional medical knowledge spans
various dimensions relating to medicines,
food and nutrition, rituals, daily routines
and customs. There is no single approach to
traditional medical knowledge. Traditional
knowledge is not restricted to any
particular period in time, and constantly
undergoes re-evaluation based on local

12

contexts. Some traditional medical systems
are codiﬁed, and some even institutionalized.
They range from highly developed ways of
perception and understanding, classiﬁcation
systems (local-taxonomies) to metaphysical
precepts. Links to geography, community,
worldviews, biodiversity and ecosystems based
on speciﬁc epistemologies make traditional
health practices diverse and unique. By
extension, level of expertise is heterogeneous
and therefore internal validation methods
differ substantially despite an underlying
philosophical principle of interconnectedness
of social and natural worlds.
43. Medicinal and aromatic plants, the great
majority of which are sourced from the
wild, are used in traditional medicine and
also in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and
food industries. The global use and trade
in medicinal plants and other biological
resources, including wildlife, is high and
growing. Plants used in traditional medicine
are not only important in local health care, but
are important to innovations in healthcare
and associated international trade; they
enter various commodity chains based on
information gathered from their use in
traditional medical pharmacopeia. Globally,
an estimated 60,000 species are used for
their medicinal, nutritional and aromatic
properties, and every year more than 500,000
tons of material from such species are traded.
It is estimated that the global trade in plants
for medicinal purposes reaches a value of over
2,5 billion USD and is increasingly driven by
industry demand.
44. Threats to medicinal plants, animals and
other medicinal resources are increasing.
Wild plant populations are declining- one in
ﬁve species is estimated to be threatened with
extinction in the wild. Animals (amphibians,
reptiles, birds, mammals) used for food and
medicine are more threatened than those
not used. Overharvesting, habitat alteration,
and climate change are among major drivers
of declines in commercially important wild
plant resources used for food and medicinal

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

purposes. These pose a threat both to the wild
species and to the livelihoods of collectors,
who often belong to the poorest social groups.
There is a clear need to continue eﬀorts at
developing assessment methods and indicators
for conservation and sustainable use.
45. Sustainable use of medicinal resources can
provide multiple beneﬁts to biodiversity,
livelihoods and human health, in
particular, relating to their aﬀordability,
accessibility and cultural acceptability.
Sustainable medicinal resource management
for both captive-breeding and wild-collection
is crucial for the future of traditional medicine,
that involves all stakeholders including
conservationists, private healthcare sector,
medical practitioners and its consumers.
Appropriate market-based instruments to
enable sustainable and responsible utilization
of resources in traditional medicine are
required. Value chains of traditional medicines
can be simple and local or global and extremely
complex. Some resources have one or a few
speciﬁc uses while others are used in many
diﬀerent products and markets. In many cases
the people who harvest these resources have
little knowledge of the subsequent uses and
values. Ensuring equitable economic returns
to local communities by promoting value
added activities at the local level could help to
harness the knowledge of local communities
on medicinal resources and promote their
sustainable use.
46. Sui generis models may need to be
developed and applied to secure rights of
indigenous peoples and local communities
over traditional medical knowledge and
related resources. Traditional medical
knowledge is often an inspiration for
industrial R&D processes in bio-resource
based sectors, necessitating mechanisms to
secure appropriate attribution and sharing of
rights and beneﬁts with knowledge holders,
as set out in the Nagoya Protocol on Access
to genetic resources and equitable sharing
of benefits arising from their commercial
utilization. It would be beneﬁcial to strengthen

and promote existing tools, databases and
registers and intellectual property rights that
are sensitive to community values.
47. Improving public health outcomes and
achieving objectives of ‘Health for All’
and ‘Good Health at Low Cost’ should
include traditional medical care and the
development of appropriate integrative
methodologies and safety standards
within and across medical systems. More
than one-third of the population in many
developing countries do not have access to
modern healthcare, and are dependent on
traditional medical systems. There is a high
patronage of and dependence on traditional
health practitioners to provide care to people
with inadequate access to modern health
infrastructure or with a preference for
traditional systems. Pluralistic approaches
that integrate natural resources and medical
knowledge and are sensitive to local priorities
and contexts can enable better health
outcomes. This implies the need to develop
cross-sectoral, cost-effective measures to
test safety, eﬃcacy and quality of traditional
medicines, the integration of traditional
healers in the healthcare system through
appropriate accreditation practices and
processes, cross-learning between diﬀerent
knowledge systems and disciplines through
participatory, formal and informal learning
processes to supplement current practices in
a culturally sensitive way.

BIODIVERSITY AND MENTAL,
PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL WELLBEING
It is well established that biodiversity is a central
component of many cultures and cultural traditions,
and evidence that exposure to nature and more
biodiverse environments can also provide mental
and physical health beneﬁts. Over half of the world’s
population lives in cities and that proportion is
increasing. There is a rising trend for people, especially
from poor communities, to be separated from nature
and be deprived of the physical, physiological and
psychological beneﬁts that nature provides.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

13

48. The interaction with nature – including
domestic animals, and wild animals in wild
settings – may contribute to treatments
for depression, anxiety, and behavioural
problems, including for children.
Exposure to nature is important to childhood
development, and children who grow up with
knowledge about the natural world and the
importance of conservation may be more
likely to conserve nature themselves as adults.
Conversely, it has been stipulated that children
in developed countries increasingly suﬀer from
a “nature-deﬁcit disorder”, due to a reduction
in the time spent playing outdoors as a result
of increased use of technology and parental
/ societal fears for child safety. On the other
hand, some research has suggested that some
children, particularly those from urban areas,
are fearful of spending time in certain natural
habitats (woodland and wetland) owing to
perceived threats from isolation, wild animals
or the actions of other people.
49. Exposure to green space may have positive
impacts on mental health. Depression
accounts for 4.3% of the global burden of
disease and is among the largest single causes
of disability worldwide, particularly for women.
Some studies of populations in developed
countries have suggested that adults exposed
to green space report fewer symptoms and a
lower overall incidence of certain diseases than
others, and that the relationship is strongest
for mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety
and stress. Similarly beneﬁcial mental health
impacts have been associated with greater
exposure to microbial diversity. Other research

14

50. Access to natural green space can increase
levels of physical activity with beneﬁts
for health. The beneﬁts of physical activity
may include reduced risk of several noncommunicable diseases, as well as improved
immune function. It may also provide mental
health beneﬁts, and facilitate social connections
and independence. Among populations for
which access to open countryside is limited,
particularly those in poorer inner-urban areas
of large cities, access to green spaces in the
urban environment can encourage regular
physical activity and improve life expectancy.
It has also been suggested that health beneﬁts
may be more significantly attributable to
enhanced exposure to environmental microbes
in green spaces. There is evidence that
biodiversity encourages use of urban green
spaces. Eﬀorts to develop biodiverse settings,
including wildlife-rich gardens, can also boost
physical activity in sedentary and vulnerable
patients and residents. While, the potential
that green space can oﬀer for promoting and
enhancing physical ﬁtness is still not fully
recognised, there is a growing interest in many
countries to promote and enhance “green and
blue infrastructure” (terrestrial and aquatic
environments) within tourism, public health
and environmental policies.

B. SHAPIT / BIOVERSITY

GLEN BOWES

has indicated that experience of nature can
reduce recuperation times and improve
recovery outcomes in hospital patients.

51. Biodiversity is often central to cultures,
cultural traditions and cultural wellbeing. Species, habitats, ecosystems, and
landscapes inﬂuence forms of music, language,

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

art, literature and dance. They form essential
elements of food production systems,
culinary traditions, traditional medicine,
rituals, worldviews, attachments to place and
community, and social systems. Use of the
WHO Quality Of Life Assessment (devised to
determine an individual’s quality of life in the
context of their culture and value systems) has
shown that the environmental domain is an
important part of the quality of life concept.
Socio-ecological production landscapes (e.g.
Satoyama in Japan) or conservation systems
(e.g. sacred groves, ceremonial sites) or
therapeutic landscapes (e.g. sacred healing
sites), and related traditional knowledge
practices can have therapeutic value and
contribute to health and well-being.
52. Signiﬁcant changes to local biodiversity or
ecosystem sustainability can have speciﬁc
and unique impacts on local community
health where the physical health of a
community is directly inﬂuenced by or
dependent upon ecosystem services,
particularly regarding access to diverse
food and medicinal species. Indigenous and
local communities often act as stewards of local
living natural resources based on generations of
accumulated traditional knowledge, including
knowledge of agricultural biodiversity,
and biodiversity that supports traditional
medicinal knowledge. Where local traditions
and cultural identity are closely associated
with biodiversity and ecosystem services,
declines in the availability and abundance of
such resources can have a detrimental impact
on community well-being, with implications
for mental and physical health, social welfare
and community cohesion.
53. While many community-specific links
between health, culture and biodiversity
have been documented and measured,
much of the evidence for a more universal
relationship is relatively sparse beyond
anecdotal accounts. However, there is
growing recognition of the role of biodiversity
and ecosystem services in shaping broad
perspectives of quality of life.

IMPACTS OF PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS ON BIODIVERSITY AND
CONSEQUENCES FOR HEALTH
Antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals are essential
for human health and also play an important role
in veterinary medicine. However, the release
of active pharmaceutical ingredients into the
environment can be harmful to biodiversity, with
negative consequences for human health.
54. The release of pharmaceuticals and
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
(APIs) into the environment can have an
impact on biodiversity, ecosystems and
ecosystem service delivery, and, may, in
turn negatively impact human health.
A range of pharmaceuticals, including
hormones, antibiotics, anti-depressants
and antifungal agents have been detected in
rivers and streams across the world. Most
pharmaceuticals are designed to interact with
a target (such as a speciﬁc receptor, enzyme,
or biological process) in humans and animals
to deliver the desired therapeutic eﬀect. If
these targets are present in organisms in
the natural environment, exposure to some
pharmaceuticals might be able to elicit eﬀects
in those organisms. Pharmaceuticals can also
cause side eﬀects in humans and it is possible
that these and other side eﬀects can also occur
in organisms in the environment. During the
life cycle of a pharmaceutical product, APIs
may be released to the natural environment,
including during the manufacturing process
via human or domestic animal excretion
into sewage systems, surface water or soils,
when contaminated sewage sludge, sewage
effluent or animal manure is applied to
land. APIs may also be released into the soil
environment when contaminated sewage
sludge, sewage eﬄuent or animal manure is
applied to land. Veterinary pharmaceuticals
may also be excreted directly to soils by pasture
animals. Measures are needed to reduce this
environmental contamination.
55. Antibiotic and antimicrobial use can
alter the composition and function of the

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

15

human microbiome and limiting their use
would provide biodiversity and health
co-beneﬁts. Antibiotic use can dramatically
alter the composition and function of the
human microbiome. Although much of the
microbiome and its relationship to its host
remains unexplored, already apparent is that
changes to the variety and abundance of
various microorganisms, as can occur with
antibiotic use, may aﬀect everything from
the host’s weight and the risk of contracting
autoimmune disease, to susceptibility to
infections. The microbiome may also be able
to aﬀect mood and behaviour. The use of
antibacterial products and antibiotics may
also be linked to the increase in chronic
inﬂammatory disorders, including allergies
such as asthma and eczema, because they
reduce exposure to microbial agents that set up
the regulation of the immune system. Limiting
the use of antimicrobial agents could provide
potential co-beneﬁts for human health and
biodiversity, reducing chronic inﬂammatory
diseases through a healthy and more diverse
human microbiota while also reducing the risk
of emerging disease from antibiotic-resistant
strains and the potential impacts of antibiotics
on ecosystems more broadly.
56. The inappropriate use of antibiotics in
plants, animals, and humans has cultivated
numerous highly resistant bacterial
strains. In some instances, resistant bacterial
strains cannot be eﬀectively treated with any
currently available antibiotic. Promoting the
responsible and prudent use of antibiotics and
antimicrobials in human health, agricultural
practices and food production systems
can achieve public health and biodiversity
co-benefits. Poorly managed industrial
agricultural practices contribute to ecosystem
degradation, air and water pollution and soil
depletion and rely heavily on the inappropriate
use of antibiotics for both therapeutic as well
as prophylactic (growth promotion) use, which
may lead to environmental dispersion of
antimicrobial agents, antibiotic resistance, and
reduced eﬃcacy in subsequent use for medical
or food production applications. From a health

16

perspective, the use of antimicrobials and
antibiotics may disrupt microbial composition,
including the relationships between hosts and
their symbiotic microbes, and lead to diseases.
At the same time, antibiotic resistance in
any environment can pose serious threats
to public health. Aside from its potential to
cultivate resistance, antibiotic use also carries
the potential to disrupt symbiotic bacterial
composition.
57. Endocrine disrupting chemicals found in
pharmaceuticals products and also in many
household, food and consumer products
have adverse effects on the health of
terrestrial, freshwater and marine wildlife
and human health. The use of contraceptive
hormones and veterinary growth hormones
have been linked to endocrine disruption
and reproductive dysfunction in wildlife.
They also aﬀect both male and female human
reproduction, and have been linked to prostate
cancer, neurological, endocrinological,
thyroid, obesity, and cardiovascular problems.
Biodiversity has also been a good monitor for
some of these human health problems. In
some cases, health specialists were alerted
to the scale of a potential problem through
changes originally recorded in wild fish
populations.
58. The inappropriate use of some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and
other veterinary drugs threatens wildlife
populations. For example, in the 1980s,
populations of three previously abundant
vulture species in South Asia were reduced to
near extinction due to the use in livestock of
diclofenac, residues of which remained in the
carcasses of treated animals. This led to negative
impacts on human health through spread of
diseases by feral dogs as access to carcasses
increased, especially among communities
who rely on vultures to consume their dead.
Following bans on the use of diclofenac and its
replacement by meloxicam, vulture population
declines have slowed and some show signs of
recovery in the region. Without proper risk
assessment and regulation the marketing and

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

use of pharmaceuticals used for livestock may
continue to pose threats to human and wildlife
health.

AIRMAN 1ST CLASS CHERYL SANZI (USAF)

GLOBAL CHANGE ADAPTATION TO
CLIMATE CHANGE AND DISASTER
RISK REDUCTION

59. Climate change is already negatively
impacting on human health and these
impacts are expected to intensify. Direct
effects of climate change on health may
include stroke and dehydration associated
with heat waves (in particular in urban areas),
negative health consequences associated with
reduced air quality and the spread of allergens
Eﬀects are also mediated through the impacts
on ecosystems and biodiversity. Such eﬀects
may include decreased food production and
changes in the spread of climate-sensitive
waterborne and water-related, food-borne
and vector-borne diseases. There may be
synergistic eﬀects of climate change, land use
change, pollution invasive species and other
drivers of change which can amplify impacts
on both health and biodiversity.
60. Climate change will not only affect
agricultural production systems but also
the nutritional content of foods and the
distribution and availability of ﬁsheries.
Changes in temperature and precipitation
patterns will have complex eﬀects, but the
net eﬀect on food production will be negative.
While rising levels of atmospheric carbon,
tend to increase productivity, they will lead
to reduced concentrations of minerals such
as zinc and iron in crops such as wheat and
rice. With regard to marine ﬁsheries, while

there would be increased productivity at high
latitudes there will be decreased productivity
at low/mid latitudes, aﬀecting poor developing
countries.
61. Disasters may be precipitated by impacts
on critical ecosystems or the collapse of
essential ecosystem services. Disasters
may include disease epidemics, flooding,
storm, extreme weather, and wildﬁres. Some
of these may be precipitated by ecosystem
disruption. There is an increase in frequency
and intensity of some climate-related extreme
events. Ecosystem degradation can increase
the vulnerability of human populations to
such disasters. New environmental impacts
often occur during and after an emergency
with an increased demand for certain natural
resources which can place additional stress
on speciﬁc ecosystems (such as groundwater
resources) and their functioning.
62. Competition over access to ecosystem
goods and services can contribute to,
and become a cause of, conflict, with
consequences that can negatively impact
ecosystem goods and services in both the
short- and long-term. Greater recognition
needs to be given to the potential positive role
that conservation and ecosystem management
can play in conﬂict prevention and resolution
and peace building, while the converse also
holds.
63. The creation of disaster-resilient societies
is increasingly tied to and dependent upon
resilience in ecosystems, and sustainability
and security in the ﬂow and delivery of
essential ecosystem goods and services
– not only those directly associated with
resilience to immediate disaster impacts, but
also those that normally support communities
and wider society. Long-term health status is
an important indicator of the resilience of
a community – as a marker for capacity to
overcome or adapt to health challenges and
other social, environmental and economic
pressures. Communities whose ability to
overcome current challenges are aﬀected by

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

17

ecosystem degradation at the time of a disaster
event – natural or man-made – are likely to be
signiﬁcantly more vulnerable to disasters than
communities with greater ecological security.
64. Biodiversity helps to improve resilience of
ecosystems, contributing to adaptation to
climate change and moderating the impacts
of disasters. Ecosystem-based adaptation and
mitigation strategies are needed to build the
resilience of managed landscapes and jointly
reduce the vulnerabilities of ecosystems and
communities reliant upon them for their
health, livelihoods and well-being. For example,
Ecosystem-based approaches to ﬂood-plain
and coastal development can reduce human
exposure to risks from ﬂooding. Coral reefs
are very eﬀective in protecting against coastal
hazards (reducing wave energy by 97%) and
protect over 100 million people in this way
from coastal storm surges. The conservation
and use of genetic resources in agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry is important to
allow crops, trees, ﬁsh and livestock to adapt
to climate change.

SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND
PRODUCTION
65. Increased pressure on the biosphere, driven
by increasing human populations and per
capita consumption threatens biodiversity
and human health. Biosphere integrity
is threatened by a number of interacting
drivers including climate change, land-use
change, pollution and biodiversity loss. Global
population is projected to increase to nine
to ten billion by 2050, and may continue to
increase this century. Greater investment in
education of girls and women and improved
access to contraceptives information and
services can improve human health and
well-being directly and also help to slow
these trends, potentially reducing pressures
on ecosystems. Under business as usual
scenarios, increased per-capita consumption
will lead to even greater increased pressures on
the biosphere. Slowing these trends requires
improvements in energy and resource use

18

efficiency, including a decarbonization of
energy supplies this century. These changes
will need to be complemented by increased
equality in access to and use of energy and
other natural resources.
66. Alternative scenarios to 2050, as well as
practical experience, demonstrate that it is
possible to secure food security and reduce
poverty while also protecting biodiversity
and addressing climate change and attain
other human development goals, but that
this requires transformational change.
Scenario analyses show that there are multiple
plausible pathways to simultaneously achieve
globally agreed goals. Common elements of
these pathways include: reducing greenhouse
gas emissions from energy and industry;
increasing agricultural productivity and
containing agricultural expansion to prevent
further biodiversity loss and to avoid excessive
greenhouse gas emissions from conversion
of natural habitats; restoring degraded
land, protecting critical habitats; managing
biodiversity in agricultural landscapes; reducing
nutrient and pesticide pollution and water use;
reducing post harvest losses in agriculture
and food waste by retailers and consumers
as well as moderating the increase in meat
consumption. Implementing these measures
requires a package of actions including legal
and policy frameworks, economic incentives,
and public and stakeholder engagement.
Coherence of policies and coordination across
sectors are essential.
67. Behavioural change is needed to improve
human health and protect biodiversity.
Human behaviour, which is informed by
diﬀerences in knowledge, values, social norms,
power relationships, and practices is at the
core of the interlinkages between health and
biodiversity, including challenges related to
food, water, disease, medicine, physical and
mental well-being, adaptation and mitigation
of climate change. There is a need to draw
upon the social sciences to motivate choices
consistent with health and biodiversity
objectives and to develop new approaches

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

through, inter alia, better understanding
of behavioural change, production and
consumption patterns, policy development,
and the use of non-market tools. The need
for more eﬀective communication, education
and public awareness to be spread more widely
through school systems and other channels
and to devise communication and awareness
strategies on biodiversity and health.

STRATEGIES FOR HEALTH AND
BIODIVERSITY
68. Health and biodiversity strategies could be
developed with the aim of ensuring that
the biodiversity and health linkages are
widely recognized, valued, and reﬂected
in national public health and biodiversity
strategies, and in the programs, plans, and
strategies of other relevant sectors, with
the involvement of local communities. The
implementation of such strategies could be
a joint responsibility of ministries of health,
environment, and other relevant ministries
responsible for the implementation of
environmental health programs and national
biodiversity strategies and action plans. Such
strategies would need to be tailored to the
needs and priorities of particular countries.
Such strategies might include the following
objectives:
a. Promoting the health beneﬁts provided by
biodiversity for food security and nutrition,
water supply, and other ecosystem services,
pharmaceuticals and traditional medicines,
mental health and physical and cultural
well-being. In turn, this provides a rationale
for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity as well as the fair and equitable
sharing of beneﬁts;
b. Managing ecosystems to reduce the risks
of infectious diseases, including zoonotic
and vector-borne diseases, for example by
avoiding ecosystem degradation, preventing
invasive alien species, and limiting or
controlling human-wildlife contact;

c. Addressing drivers of environmental change
(deforestation and other ecosystem loss and
degradation and chemical pollution) that
harm both biodiversity and human health,
including direct health impacts and those
mediated by biodiversity loss;
d. Promoting lifestyles that might contribute
jointly to positive health and biodiversity
outcomes (for example, protecting
traditional foods and food cultures,
promoting dietary diversity)
e. Addressing the unintended negative impacts
of health interventions on biodiversity
(for example, antibiotic resistance,
contamination from pharmaceuticals), and
incorporating ecosystem concerns into
public health policies.
f. Addressing the unintended negative impacts
of biodiversity interventions on health (for
example, eﬀect of protected areas or hunting
bans on access to food, medicinal plants).
g. Adopting the One Health approach or
other integrative approaches that consider
connections between human, animal,
and plant diseases and promotes crossdisciplinary synergies for health and
biodiversity.
h. Educating, engaging and mobilizing the
public and the health sector, including
professional health associations as
potential, powerful advocates for the
sustainable management of ecosystems.
Mobilize organizations and individuals
who can articulate the linkage and the
enormous value proposition investments
in sustainable ecosystem management
provide to the social and economic health
of communities;
i. Monitoring, evaluating and forecasting
progress toward the achievement of
national, regional and global targets at
regular intervals against evidence-based
indicators, including threshold values for
critical ecosystem services, such as the

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

19

availability and access to food, water and
medicines.

TOOLS, METRICS AND FURTHER
RESEARCH
69. Integration of biodiversity and human
health concerns will require the use
of common metrics and frameworks.
Conventional measures of health are often
too limited in focus to adequately encompass
the health benefits from biodiversity.
Notwithstanding the broad WHO deﬁnition
of health, traditional measures of health,
such as disability adjusted life years (DALYs)
and burden of disease, tend to have a more
narrow focus on morbidity, mortality and
disability, and fail to capture the full breadth
of complex linkages between biodiversity and
health. Alternative metrics deﬁning health are
needed to reﬂect the broad aspects of human
health and well-being. Further, to increase
collaboration across disciplines and sectors
more attention could be paid to “translating”
the meaning of key metrics to increase
shared relevance. Similarly, frameworks
provide a conceptual structure to build on
for research, demonstration projects, policy
and other purposes. Embracing a broad
framework that aims to maximize the health
of ecosystems and humans both could help the
diﬀerent disciplines and sectors work more
collaboratively. The conceptual framework of
the IPBES, building upon that articulated in
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, is a
framework that links biodiversity to human
well-being, considering also institutions and
drivers of change.
70. The development of comparable tools–and
maximizing the use of existing tools–
to promote a common evidence base
across sectors is needed. Tools ranging
from systematic assessment processes (for
example, environmental impact assessments,
strategic environmental assessments, risk
assessments, and health impact assessments)
to the systematic reviews of research ﬁndings,
to standardized data collection forms to

20

computerized modeling programs should
also consider health-biodiversity linkages to
manage future risks and safeguard ecosystem
functioning while ensuring that social costs,
including health impacts, associated with
new measures and strategies do not outweigh
potential beneﬁts;
71. The development of precautionary policies
that place a value on ecosystem services to
health, and make positive use of linkages
between biodiversity and health are
needed. For example, for integrated disease
surveillance in wildlife, livestock and human
populations as a cost-eﬀective measure to
promote early detection and avoid the much
greater damage and costs of disease outbreaks;
72. Measuring health effects of ecosystem
change considering established “exposure”
threshold values helps highlight
biodiversity-health-development linkages.
Mechanisms linking ecosystem change to
health eﬀects are varied. For many sub-ﬁelds,
exposure thresholds or standards have been
scientiﬁcally established that serve as trigger
points for taking action to avoid or minimize
disease or disability. For example, air quality
standards exist for particle pollution, WHO
has established minimum quantities of per
capita water required to meet basic needs,
and thresholds for food security deﬁne the
quantity of food required to meet individual
daily nutritional needs. Measuring the
health eﬀects of ecosystem change relative
to established threshold values highlights
how such change constitutes exposure – an
important principle linking cause and disease
or other health eﬀects –and encourages action
if thresholds are exceeded
73. Economic valuation approaches linking
ecosystem functioning and health that
support decisions about resource allocation
may appeal to a variety of stakeholders.
Many approaches enhance understanding
of ecosystem functioning and human health
linkages. Common on the health side are
environmental hazard or risk factor analyses.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Others include identifying and reducing
health disparities/inequities; focusing
on environmental and socio-economic
determinants of disease, and conducting
health impact assessments. Conservation
approaches include land-/seascape change
modelling, vulnerability and adaptation
assessments, linked health and environmental
assessments and ecosystem service analyses.
74. Further research is needed to elucidate
some of the potential knowledge gaps on
linkages between biodiversity and human
health. Examples of key questions include:
a. What are the relationships between
biodiversity, biodiversity change and
infectious diseases? Speciﬁcally, what are
the eﬀects of species diversity, disturbance
and human-wildlife contacts? What are the
implications for spatial planning?
b. What are the linkages between biodiversity
(including biodiversity in the food
production system), dietary diversity and
health? Is there a relationship between
dietary biodiversity and the composition and
diversity of the human microbiome? What
are good indicators of dietary biodiversity?
What are the cumulative health impacts of
ecosystem alteration?

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
GOALS AND POST-2015
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
75. Health and biodiversity, and the linkages
among them and with other elements
of sustainable development must be
well integrated into the post-2015
developmentw agenda. The post-2015
development agenda provides a unique
opportunity to advance the parallel goals
of improving human health and protecting
biodiversity. The Sustainable Development
Goals will address various aspects of human
well-being and be accompanied by targets
and indicators. Speciﬁc biodiversity related
targets and indicators should be integrated

into Goals on food security and nutrition,
water and health. The SDG framework should
also provide for the enabling conditions for
human health and for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity, and for the
underlying drivers of both biodiversity loss and
ill-health to be addressed. This implies Goals
for improved governance, and institutions, at
appropriate scales (from local to global), for
the management of risks and the negotiation
of trade-oﬀs among stakeholder groups, where
they exist, as well as for behavioural change.
76. Ongoing evaluation of synergistic and
antagonistic effects of complementary
sustainable development goals and
targets is needed. This includes sustainable
development goals and targets addressing
health, food and freshwater security, climate
change and biodiversity loss and evaluate the
long-term impacts of trade-oﬀs is needed;
such as the trade-oﬀ and short-term gains
from intensive and unsustainable agricultural
production, against longer-term nutritional
security. For example, the impacts of
unsustainable agricultural practices that may
exacerbate climatic pressures may also lead
to greater food insecurity, particularly among
poor and vulnerable populations, by negatively
influencing its availability, accessibility,
utilization and sustainability.
77. Health is our most basic human right
and therefore one of the most important
indicators of sustainable development.
At the same time, the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity is
imperative for the continued functioning
of ecosystems at all scales, and for the
delivery of ecosystem services that are
essential for human health. There are many
opportunities for synergistic approaches that
promote both biodiversity conservation and
the health of humans. However, in some
cases there must be trade-oﬀs among these
objectives. Indeed, because of the complexity
of interactions among the components
of biodiversity at various tropical levels
(including parasites and symbionts), and

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

21

22

of health–biodiversity relationships will allow
for the adjustment of interventions in both
sectors, with a view to promoting human wellbeing over the long-term.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

ISTOCKPHOTO

across ecosystems at various scales (from
the planetary-scale biomes to humanmicrobial interactions), positive, negative
and neutral links are quite likely to occur
simultaneously. An enhanced understanding

PART I

Concepts, Themes &
Directions

CONOR KRETSCH

1. Introduction to the State of
Knowledge Review
The right to health is well established as a
fundamental right of every human being.¹
Biodiversity is at the heart of the intricate web
of life on earth and the processes essential to its
survival. Our planet’s biological resources are not
only shaped by natural evolutionary processes but
are also increasingly transformed by anthropogenic
activity, population pressures and globalizing
tendencies. When human activity threatens these
resources, or the complex ecosystems of which
they are a part, it poses potential risks to millions
of people whose livelihoods, health and well-being
are sustained by them. The increasingly complex
global health challenges that we face, including
poverty, malnutrition, infectious diseases and
the growing burden of noncommunicable diseases
(NCDs), are more intimately tied than ever to
the complex interactions between ecosystems,
people and socioeconomic processes. These
considerations are also at the heart of the post2015 Development Agenda and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).

The dual challenges of biodiversity loss and rising
global health burdens are not only multifaceted
and complex; they also transcend sectoral,
disciplinary and cultural boundaries, and demand
far-reaching, coherent and collaborative solutions.
One of the widely acknowledged shortcomings
of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
and targets (the precursors of the SDGs) was the
lack of cross-sectoral integration among social,
economic and environmental goals, targets and
priorities (Haines et al. 2012). Opposing trends
have been reported among the key indicators
for the MDGs, with many negative trends for
environmental indicators, including biodiversity
(CBD 2014; Haines et al. 2012; WHO 2015).
The World Health Organization (WHO) and
the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) are working together to address
these challenges.² This State of Knowledge Review
assembles expertise and insights from numerous
researchers, practitioners, policy-makers

¹ The right to health is established as a fundamental right of every human being in Article 1 of the World Health Organization
Constitution (http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf). This was the ﬁrst international instrument to
enshrine the “right to health” as the “enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health”, also reﬂected in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The right to health is understood as an inclusive right that extends beyond health
care to include the underlying determinants of health, such as access to water and food, essential medicines, etc.
² The World Health Organization and the Convention on Biological Diversity have been cooperating to promote greater
awareness about, and action on, the interlinkages between human health and biodiversity by convening experts from relevant
organizations, joint publications and organizing regional capacity-building workshops for experts from the biodiversity
and health sectors in the Americas and Africa (Romanelli et al. 2014). The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity has adopted a number of decisions in this regard (CBD 2010, 2012, 2014).

24

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

and experts from the fields of biodiversity
conservation, public health, agriculture, nutrition,
epidemiology, immunology, and others to do the
following:

•

Provide an overview of the scientiﬁc evidence
for linkages between biodiversity and human
health in a number of key thematic areas;

• Contribute to a broader understanding of the
importance of biodiversity to human health in

the evolving context of the SDGs and post-2015
Development Agenda, as well as the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (see Box 1);

• Facilitate cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary approaches to health
and biodiversity conservation, and promote
cooperation between diﬀerent sectors and actors
in an eﬀort to mainstream biodiversity in national
health strategies and mainstream health in
biodiversity strategies;

Box 1: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020
The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its twenty Aichi Targets provide an agreed
overarching framework for action on biodiversity, and a foundation for sustainable development
for all stakeholders, including agencies across the United Nations (UN) system. The Strategic Plan
was adopted at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity and has been recognized or supported by the governing bodies of other biodiversity-related
conventions, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture, the World Heritage Convention, as well as the UN General Assembly.
Governments at Rio 20 a rmed the importance of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020
and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, emphasizing the role that the Strategic Plan plays for the
UN system, the international community and civil society worldwide to achieve the world we want. It
is primarily implemented by countries through national biodiversity strategies and action plans, with
Parties encouraged to set their own national targets within the framework of the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets. The UN General Assembly has encouraged Parties and all stakeholders, institutions and
organizations concerned to consider the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets in the elaboration of the post-2015 UN Development Agenda, taking into account
the three dimensions of sustainable development.
The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 includes a vision for 2050, ve strategic goals and
twenty Aichi Biodiversity Targets, mostly to be achieved by 2020. The 2050 Vision stresses the role
of biodiversity for human well-being: “biodiversity to be valued, conserved, restored and wisely used,
maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering bene ts essential for all
people . The ve goals include: to protect nature (Goal C), to maximize the bene ts for all people
(Goal D), to reduce pressures on biodiversity (Goal B), to address the underlying causes of loss (Goal
A), and to provide for enabling activities (Goal E). Under Goal D, Target 14 speci cally refers to human
health: “By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and
contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account
the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.”
The Strategic Plan also includes means of implementation, monitoring, review and evaluation, as well
as support mechanisms (strategy for resource mobilization, capacity building, technical and scienti c
cooperation).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

25

•

Provide some of the basic tools necessary to
investigate how biodiversity may inﬂuence health
status or health outcomes, for given projects,
policies or plans at varying levels (i.e. from
community to the national, regional and global
levels).
This work is aimed primarily at policy-makers,
practitioners and researchers working in the
fields of biodiversity conservation, public
health, development, agricultural and other
relevant sectors. Its ﬁndings suggest that greater
interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration is
essential for the development of more coordinated
and coherent policies aimed at addressing the
tripartite challenge of biodiversity loss, the
global burden of ill-health and development.
Interdisciplinary scientific investigation and
approaches are critical to meeting these challenges.
This volume demonstrates the need to foster
greater synergy across scientiﬁc disciplines, social
sciences and humanities, with more coherent
strategies across all levels of governance. The
full involvement of all segments of society,
including local communities, will also be needed
as we transition toward a new era of sustainable
development.
Some of the linked variables at the junction
of biodiversity and human health described
throughout this volume are schematically
represented in Figure 1.
This volume comprises three main parts.
Part One deﬁnes the concepts of biodiversity and
health, introduces concepts such as the social
and environmental determinants of health,
biodiversity and ecosystem services, and provides
a broad overview of the diﬀerent ways in which
biodiversity and health are linked. It also considers
common drivers of change that impact on both
global public health and biodiversity, and calls for
the use of integrative, interdisciplinary framework
approaches that attempt to unite diﬀerent ﬁelds
such as “One Health”, “Ecohealth” and the
ecosystem approach.

26

Part Two examines how biodiversity is related
to speciﬁc thematic areas at the biodiversity–
health nexus, specifically addressing: water
and air quality; agricultural biodiversity and
food security; nutrition and health; infectious
diseases; microbial communities and NCDs; the
contribution of biodiversity to health care and
the impact of pharmaceuticals on biodiversity;
traditional medicine; physical and mental health
and well-being, and cultural ecosystem services.
Finally, Part Three discusses some critical crosscutting themes at the intersection of biodiversity
and health, including climate change, disaster
risk reduction, and sustainable consumption and
production. It also suggests broad strategies and
approaches to integrate a consideration of the
linkages between biodiversity and human health
into public policy, and identifies preliminary
tools and research gaps for further exploration.
The volume concludes by highlighting how better
consideration of the linkages between biodiversity
and human health will contribute to the post-2015
Development Agenda.
This State of Knowledge Review builds upon and
extends the health synthesis of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (WHO 2005) and other
recent studies (Chivian & Bernstein 2008; Sala
et al. 2012). As further discussed in Chapter 2,
the review casts a wide net, considering the direct
and indirect linkages between human health
and biodiversity (including its components and
ecosystems).
Biodiversity plays a critical role in ecosystem
functioning and also yields direct and indirect
beneﬁts (or ecosystem services) that support
human and societal needs, including good health,
food and nutrition security, energy provision,
freshwater and medicines, livelihoods and
spiritual fulﬁlment. These, in turn are mediated
by the social determinants of health (such as age,
gender and access to health care). Multidisciplinary
approaches can help us to better analyse and
evaluate the interactions between these diﬀerent
variables to better develop more coordinated,
coherent and integrated policies.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Linkages and co-dependencies at the intersection of biodiversity and human health

BIODIVERSITY
Ecosystem goods
and services

Poverty

nt

HEALTH
IMPACTS

A ge, ge n d e r

NASA

y
Ph

Access

Regulating
services

Cultural
services

rminants o
fh
ete
d
e
l
v
n
i
e
r
o
l
a
n
ia
me
sic

th
al

So
c

Provisioning
services

Supporting
services

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

27

LUIS ASCUI FOR ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK / FLICKR

2. Biodiversity and human health
linkages: concepts, determinants, drivers
of change and approaches to integration
1. BIODIVERSITY, HEALTH AND
INTERACTIONS
1.1 What is biodiversity?
Biological diversity, most commonly used in its
contracted form, biodiversity,¹ is the term used
to describe the variety of life on earth, including
animals, plants and microbial species. It has
been estimated that there are some 8.7 million
eukaryotic species on earth,² of which some
25% (2.2. million) are marine, and most of them
have yet to be discovered (Mora et al. 2011).
Biodiversity not only refers to the multitude of
species on earth, it also consists of the speciﬁc
genetic variations and traits within species (such
as diﬀerent crop varieties),³ and the assemblage of
these species within ecosystems that characterize
agricultural and other landscapes such as forests,
wetlands, grasslands, deserts, lakes and rivers.
Each ecosystem comprises living beings that
interact with one another and with the air,
water and soil around them. These multiple
interconnections within and between ecosystems

form the web of life, of which humans are an
integral part and upon which they depend for their
very survival. It is the combination of these life
forms and their interactions with one another, and
with the surrounding environment, that makes
human life on earth possible (CBD 2006).
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
deﬁnes biodiversity as: “the variability among
living organisms from all sources including,
inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which
they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species, and of ecosystems”.⁴ Biodiversity
encompasses much more than the variety of life on
earth; it also includes biotic community structure,
the habitats in which communities live, and the
variability within and among them.
Thus, biodiversity extends beyond the simple
measurement of species numbers to include the
complex network of interactions and biological
structures that sustain ecosystems (McCann
2007; Maclaurin and Sterelny 2008). Although

¹ It has been argued that the rapidly popularized term biodiversity was coined by Walter G. Rozen in 1986 (e.g. Maclaurin
and Sterelny 2008; Sarkar and Margules 2002).
² Eukaryotic cell species (including humans) are those that have a nucleus and internal compartments. Conversely, most
prokaryotic cell species are made up of a single cell.
³ For example, two species of rice contain over 120 000 genetically diﬀerent varieties (CBD 2006).
⁴ Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 2.

28

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

“species richness” is one of biodiversity’s key
components, the two terms are not synonymous.
The widely accepted deﬁnition of biodiversity
adopted by the CBD is ﬂexible, inclusive, and
reﬂective of the levels and complexities of biotic
and abiotic interactions. It recognizes levels of
variability within species, between species, and
within and between ecosystems as integral to the
ecological processes of which they are a part (Mace
et al. 2012). It is also understood that variability
manifests itself diﬀerently at various temporal and
spatial scales (Nelson et al. 2009; Thompson et
al. 2009).
The scope of the Convention is broader still;
its objectives – “the conservation of biological
diversity, the sustainable use of its components
and the fair and equitable sharing of the
beneﬁts arising out of the utilization of genetic
resources” – indicate an interest in the components
of biodiversity (including individual species) and
genetic resources.

1.2 What is health?
The constitution of the World Health Organization
(WHO) deﬁnes health as “a state of complete
physical, mental and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity”.
Health is a dynamic concept that is inﬂuenced by
a range of interacting social, biological, physical,
economic and environmental factors. As such,
health is one of the most important indicators of
sustainable development. While social status and
economic security are perhaps most important in
determining an individual’s capacity to manage her
or his health and to maintain a healthy lifestyle,
the role of environmental and ecosystem change
in determining health status are increasingly
recognized within the health, environment and
development communities. The 2005 reports
of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
have helped to increase understanding of the
relationships between the environment and
human well-being. Together, these reports have
marked a turning point in highlighting the
importance of ecosystems and the goods and

services that they provide to public health and to
economic development alike (MA 2005a, b).
The findings of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment and of large-scale national and
regional assessments have made it clear that it
is increasingly important for people in the public
health sector to recognize that human health
and well-being are inﬂuenced by the health and
integrity of local ecosystems, and frequently by
the health of local plant and animal communities.
The interactions between people and biodiversity
can determine the baseline health status of a
community, providing the basis for good health
and secure livelihoods, or creating the conditions
responsible for morbidity or mortality.⁵ In many
cases, the long-term success and sustainability
of public health interventions is determined by
the degree to which ecological factors are taken
into account. In the same way that economic
factors must often be addressed, biodiversity and
its importance to the functioning of ecosystems
must also be considered. As noted in the earlier
deﬁnition of biodiversity, this concept must also
be explored at multiple geographical and temporal
scales for the health sector. Public health policies
must also ensure that the relevance of biodiversity
is assessed and accounted for within various plans
or projects. Similarly, biodiversity conservation
initiatives must also account for how such projects
may aﬀect public health, whether the resulting
impacts are positive or negative. As the global
community works towards the implementation
of the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals, the importance of biodiversity to
livelihoods, poverty eradication and human wellbeing is also of paramount importance.

1.3 Biodiversity–health interactions
Biodiversity and human health are linked in
many ways, and a broad scope is taken in this
State of Knowledge Review. Further to Mace
and colleagues (2012), we look at “biodiversity”
in a broad sense, including not only species
richness and the genetic diversity within
species (“biodiversity, narrow sense”) but also

⁵ Morbidity refers to the incidence of a disease across a population, while mortality refers to the rate of death in a population.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

29

the components of biodiversity (species and
genotypes), and habitats and ecosystems. Thus,
the distribution and abundance of species, and the
extent of natural habitats, are relevant, in addition
to diversity per se. Moreover, we consider not only
the direct eﬀects of biodiversity or its components
on human health, but also the (indirect) eﬀects
that are due to biodiversity’s role in supporting
ecosystem processes and functioning (see section
3). Further, we examine drivers of change that
are common to both biodiversity loss (or change)
and health status. Finally, we are also concerned
with the impacts of the interventions made in the
health sector on biodiversity and vice versa. Thus,
this State of Knowledge Review casts a broader
net than other recent reviews (e.g. Hough 2014).
Like Sandifer et al. (2015), we consider a broad
range of pathways through which biodiversity may
provide health and well-being beneﬁt to people:
psychological (e.g. green spaces and iconic wildlife;
see Chapter 12), physiological (directly through
the human microbiome, and indirectly through
exercise in green spaces, see Chapters 8 and 12),
regulation of the transmission and prevalence
of some infectious diseases (see Chapter 7),
provision of food and good nutrition (Chapters
5 and 6), clean air and water (Chapters 3 and 4),
the provision of traditional and modern medicines
(Chapters 9 and 11) and the impact of some
pharmaceuticals on the environment (Chapter 11).
Box 1 and Figure 1 provide a typology of
biodiversity–health interactions.
The interactions between biodiversity and
health are manifested at multiple scales from
individuals, through communities and landscapes
to a planetary scale (Figure 1). At the scale of the
individual person, the human microbiota – the
commensal microbial communities present in
our gut, in our respiratory, oropharyngeal and
urogenital tracts and on our skin – contribute to
our nutrition, help regulate our immune system,
and prevent infection. Interactions among family
members and the wider environment may be
important in the maintenance and turnover of
this diversity. At the community level (such as
farms), many aspects of biodiversity – among

30

crops and livestock, associated pollinators and
pest control organisms and in soils – support
agricultural production. Ecosystem services in the
wider landscape of biodiversity underpin a host
of ecosystem services, including water provision
and erosion control. The functioning and integrity
of the biosphere at a planetary scale (i.e. global
level) is also understood to depend on biodiversity.

2. EQUITY AND SOCIAL
DIMENSIONS OF HEALTH AND
BIODIVERSITY
Human population health is determined, to a large
extent, by the social, economic and environmental
determinants of health (United Nations Task
Team on Social Dimensions of Climate Change
2011; WHO 2008). The social, economic and
behavioural aspects of the human condition
interact with the environment, including critical
elements of biodiversity, biodiversity losses and
gains, and ecosystem services.
Biodiversity and its changes (losses and gains)
are, to a great extent, the result of anthropogenic
inﬂuences (Mora and Zapata 2013). The social
dimensions of biodiversity are present both in
relation to these drivers of change and in relation
to how the impacts of biodiversity change are
mediated among groups of diﬀering socioeconomic
status. Biodiversity loss is impacted by
anthropogenic drivers, such as overexploitation of
natural resources, human-induced climate change
and habitat loss. Large-scale social and economic
processes and systems aﬀect biodiversity, and the
social, economic and environmental dimensions of
ecological sustainability at risk (UNESCO 2013).
Environmental determinants of health (such as air
quality, food security, water security, freedom from
disease, etc.) are interrelated and adversely aﬀected
by the reduced ability of degraded ecosystems and
biota to adapt to the impacts of climate change, air
pollution, natural disasters or water scarcity. Many
of the dynamics between biodiversity and human
health are in the area of infectious, vector-borne
diseases. In some cases, biodiversity loss (such as
that associated with deforestation) may enhance
the risk of some diseases such as malaria (Chaves

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 1. A typology of biodiversity–health interactions
ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ
!)#$%*	%..-
 %#) &! $ %#) &! $

01






	

01

#!)$!  
(%(#

		2
/


01
!$*$%!!$
2$#)$
(& 

(""!#& 

$,
$,

$,
$,

PHOTOS: ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK / FLICKR





2

$ƩUVWW\SHRILQWHUDFWLRQLVZKHUHELRGLYHUVLW\JLYHVULVHWRKHDOWKEHQHƩWV%LRGLYHUVLW\Î Health).
For example, di erent species (as well as crop varieties and livestock breeds) provide nutrients and
medicines. Biodiversity also underpins ecosystem functioning, which provides services such as water and
air puri cation, pest and disease control, and pollination. Biodiversity can also be a source of pathogens and
thus have negative impacts on health. Changes in biodiversity would lead to changes in the health bene ts.
Drivers of such changes extend the causal change upstream (Driver of change Î loss of biodiversity Î
reduction in health bene ts).
$VHFRQGW\SHRILQWHUDFWLRQDULVHVIURPGULYHUVRIFKDQJHWKDWDƨHFWERWKELRGLYHUVLW\DQGKHDOWKLQ
parallel. (Driver of change Î impacts on health and on biodiversity). For example, air and water pollution
can lead to biodiversity loss and have direct impacts on health. Deforestation (or other land-use change or
ecosystem disturbance) can lead to loss of species and habitats, and also increased disease risk for humans.
Conversely, moderated meat consumption can reduce the pressures on biodiversity (less land-use change;
lower greenhouse gas emissions) and also have health bene ts for individuals. In addition to the parallel
e ects of the driver on biodiversity and health, there may be additional impacts of the change in biodiversity
on health. For example, water pollution, in addition to harming health though loss of drinking water
uality, could lead to collapse of a uatic ecosystems through eutrophication leading to sh mortality and
conse uent negative e ects on nutrition.
(3) A third type of interaction arises from the impacts of health sector interventions on biodiversity (Health
intervention Î biodiversity) and of biodiversity-related interventions on health (Biodiversity intervention
Î health). For example, use of pharmaceuticals may lead to the release of active ingredients in the
environment and damage species and ecosystems. Again, these may have negative knock-on e ects on human
health. On the other hand, protected areas or hunting bans could deny access of local communities to bushmeat
and other wild foods, with negative nutritional impacts. Positive interactions of this type are also possible. For
example, establishment of protected areas may protect water supplies, with positive health bene ts.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

31

et al. 2011; Hahn et al. 2014; Laporta et al. 2013),
while in others, biodiversity gains (such as that
associated with reforestation) may also sometimes
increase the risk for other diseases (Levy 2013;
Ostfeld and Keesing 2000).
In addition to environmental determinants,
social and economic determinants also inﬂuence
the dynamics between biodiversity changes and
human health. The inequities of how society
is organized mean that the freedom to lead
a ﬂourishing life and to enjoy good health is
unequally distributed between and within
societies. This inequity is seen in the conditions
of early childhood and schooling, the nature of
employment and working conditions, the physical
form of the built environment, and the quality of
the natural environment in which people reside.
Depending on the nature of these environments,
diﬀerent groups will have diﬀerent experiences
of material conditions, psychosocial support and
behavioural options, which make them more or
less vulnerable to poor health. Social stratiﬁcation
likewise determines diﬀerential access to and
utilization of health care, with consequences for
the inequitable promotion of health and wellbeing, disease prevention, and recovery from
illness and survival. This unequal distribution
of health-damaging experiences is not in any
sense a “natural” phenomenon but is the result
of a toxic combination of poor social policies and
programmes, unfair economic arrangements
and power relationships. (Commission on Social
Determinants of Health 2008).
Population groups more reliant on biodiversity
and ecosystem services, especially on provisioning
services such as timber, water and food, are usually
more vulnerable to biodiversity loss and those
less covered by social protection mechanisms
(e.g. health insurance). Vulnerable groups include
indigenous populations, speciﬁc groups dependent
on biodiversity and ecosystem services and,
for example, subsistence farmers. Detrimental
changes to biodiversity and the resulting risks and
burden of human health problems are inequitably
distributed in speciﬁc social–ecological settings.
These inequalities affect both individual and
community health either directly (whether it be

32

in isolation or through an interaction with other
determinants) or indirectly (e.g. access to healthy
food).
Detrimental changes to biodiversity and the
resulting risks and burden of human health
problems are inequitably distributed in speciﬁc
social–ecological settings. Populations exposed
to the greenest environments have been found
to also have the lowest levels of health inequality
related to income deprivation, suggesting that
healthy physical environments can be important
for reducing socioeconomic health inequalities
(Mitchell and Popham 2008). Equity issues are
not only important in relation to diﬀerent groups
within a country, but also in relation to diﬀerent
vulnerabilities among countries. Developing
countries are more reliant on biodiversity and
ecosystem services than developed ones, and their
health systems are usually less prepared to protect
the health of their populations, which leads to
greater negative health impacts of biodiversity
change. Between countries, biodiversity loss is
related to income inequality (Mikkelson et al.
2007). For example, over 1 billion people, mainly
in developing countries, rely on ﬁsheries as their
primary source of animal protein (Gutiérrez et al.
2011).
Diﬀerent gender roles in relation to biodiversity
management, conservation and use can also
have an impact on human health, and more
attention needs to be paid to these gender
dimensions (WHO 2011, 2008). Access to, use
and management of biodiversity have diﬀerent
health impacts on women and men and boys
and girls, determined by gender norms, roles and
relations (Gutierrez-Montes et al. 2012). Social
norms and values determine diﬀerent gender
roles and relations, which in turn, are translated
into diﬀerent responsibilities, obligations, beneﬁts
and rights in relation to biodiversity (Manfre and
Ruben 2012). In addition to the lack of political
will, and frequently weak institutional capacity
and legal frameworks that fail to assess and
address diﬀerent gender roles, there is a lack of
sex-disaggregated data on biodiversity access,
use and control, which makes it very diﬃcult to
conduct a gender analysis and therefore design

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

adequate responses targeting speciﬁcally those
most vulnerable population groups (Castaneda et
al. 2012).
However, it is widely accepted that many of
the adverse impacts of biodiversity loss are
impacting already vulnerable groups of people,
specifically populations who are dependent
on biodiversity and ecosystem services (forest
dwellers, indigenous populations, women and
girls, etc.). Biodiversity losses in speciﬁc social–
ecological settings and the resulting health eﬀects
on marginalized populations are often triggered
by large-scale processes beyond the control
of the populations at risk. Climate change or
large-scale mining or logging projects may have
negative impacts on biodiversity, and increase
social and economic inequalities. For example,
it is estimated that 1 billion people only produce
3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. A social
justice perspective is, therefore, needed to address
the various equity dimensions in the biodiversity
and health dynamic (Walter 2003).
The social sciences are important contributors
to research and policy-making in biodiversity
and health. In addition to gender analysis, a
multifaceted approach is needed to eﬀectively
tackle the equity and social dimensions of health
and biodiversity. Social research illuminates
social vulnerabilities, and has the potential to
engage and mobilize people most aﬀected by
biodiversity loss, e.g. indigenous populations.
The social sciences also play an important role in
determining policy options for health, biodiversity
and ecosystem management (Artner and Siebert
2006; Duraiappah and Rogers 2011; Gilbert et al.
2006). Inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary research
can provide valuable insights into the drivers
of disease emergence and spread, contribute
to identifying previous patterns of disease risk,
and help to predict future risks through the
lens of social–ecological systems (Folke 2006;
Gilbert et al. 2006; UNESCO 2013). For example,
interdisciplinary work on the social determinants
of health can also provide valuable insights into
the drivers of disease emergence and spread,
contribute to identifying previous patterns of
disease risk and help to predict future risks.

Relevant tools that could be used to understand
the equity and social dimensions of health and
biodiversity for any relevant policy or programme
include social impact assessments, health impact
assessments and strategic impact assessments.
Whatever tool is used, it is key to ensure that all
health, environmental, and social considerations
and impacts are integrated within the assessment.
As discussed in section 5 of this chapter and
Part III of this volume, solutions to biodiversity
and health challenges also necessitate the
sustained engagement of multiple stakeholders,
both in governments, civil society, and in
nongovernmental and international organizations.
The social sciences are, therefore, important
contributors to research and policy-making in
biodiversity and health (UNESCO 2013), and to
the large-scale social and behavioural changes
required to achieve the objectives of sustainable
development.

3. BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM
FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES
Scientific knowledge of the impacts of
biodiversity loss on ecosystem functioning has
increased considerably in the past two decades
(Balvanera et al. 2014; Cardinale et al. 2012;
Reis et. al. 2012; Naeem and Wright 2003;
Loreau et al. 2001; Tilman et al. 1997), as well as
corresponding knowledge of its implications for
public health (Myers et al. 2013). In this section,
we summarize key elements of the relationship
between biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem
functioning, its connection to ecosystem services,
and the components that inﬂuence the quantity,
quality and reliability of ecosystem services, and
that contribute to ecosystem resilience.
There is strong evidence of the relationship
between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
and, in some cases, we can directly link this to the
ecosystem services necessary to sustain human
health (Loreau et al. 2001; Balvanera et al. 2006;
Cardinale et al. 2012; Balvanera et al. 2014). In
other cases, we do not yet have complete evidence
of this relationship (Schwartz et al. 2000; Cardinale
et al. 2012). While there is broad consensus within
the scientiﬁc community on several aspects of

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

33

the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem
functioning and the consequences of its loss on
the ability of ecosystems to provide services,
the full range of impacts of biodiversity loss on
ecosystem functioning is not fully understood
(Reiss et al. 2009; Hooper et al. 2005).

3.1 Biodiversity, ecosystem processes
and properties
Ecosystems comprise physical and chemical
biotic (e.g. plants, animals, humans) and abiotic
(e.g. light, oxygen, temperature, soil texture and
chemistry, nutrients) interactions (Currie 2011).
Ecosystem processes include decomposition,
nutrient cycling (e.g. water, nitrogen, carbon
and phosphorus cycling), production (of plant
matter), as well as energy and nutrient ﬂuxes.
A healthy ecosystem – one that performs its
various functions well and where equilibrium is
maintained – is dependent upon biodiversity.
This is often referred to as ecosystem integrity,
ecosystem stability or ecosystem health.
Fluxes of energy, biogeochemical cycles such as
nutrient cycling and oxygen production, and
community dynamics such as predator–prey
interactions are regulated by the earth’s biota. The
attributes (including composition and abundance)
and interactions of biotic and abiotic components
determine ecosystem processes and their properties,
and they inﬂuence changes in each of the latter
over space and time (Reiss et al. 2009). The
provision of essential goods and services, including
those essential to sustaining human life, is reliant
on the properties, processes and maintenance of
ecosystems (Naeem and Wright 2003; Balvanera
et al. 2006; Reiss et al. 2009, 2010). The quality,
quantity and security of the essential services
that we derive from ecosystems are determined
by several dynamic and interlinked factors,
including diﬀerent components of biodiversity,
underlying physical and biological processes (each
with their own characteristics and thresholds), and
complex responses to environmental stressors
such as pollution and climate change (Mace 2012;
Balvanera et al. 2006).

34

The specific components of biodiversity (e.g.
genes, species) and attributes (e.g. variability,
composition) that underpin the ecosystem
services that, in turn, support human health
and well-being may diﬀer among the services or
goods in question, and on the processes upon
which they rely. The diverse functional traits of
species within a community can also inﬂuence
ecosystem properties, and their examination
can contribute to understanding variations
in ecosystem functions (Hooper et al. 2005;
Tilman et al. 1997; Haines-Young and Potschin
2010; Naeem and Wright 2003) and resilience
(Mori et al. 2013; Elmqvist 2003). In this sense,
species’ functional characteristics can be critical
to ecosystem services; their loss can result in
permanent changes.
Twenty years of work on the relationship between
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning has
generated a number of controversies and spurred
eﬀorts to develop scientiﬁc consensus. Cardinale
et al. (2012) conclude that diverse communities
tend to be more productive both because they
contain key species that have a large inﬂuence on
productivity, and because diﬀerences in functional
traits among organisms increase the total capture
of resources (light, water). Thus, biodiversity
loss reduces the eﬃciency by which ecological
communities capture biologically essential
resources, produce biomass, and decompose
and recycle biologically essential nutrients. They
report that the impact of biodiversity on any single
ecosystem process is non-linear and saturating,
such that change accelerates as biodiversity loss
increases. They also point to mounting evidence
that biodiversity increases the stability of
ecosystem functions through time.

3.2 Ecosystem services
Human health ultimately depends upon ecosystem
products and services (e.g. availability of fresh
water, food and fuel sources), which are required
for good health and productive livelihoods.
Many ecosystems, such as marine areas, forests,
grasslands and wetlands, contribute to regulation
of the world’s climate, and can also inﬂuence
local microclimates. People depend directly on

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK / FLICKR

ecosystems in their daily lives, including for the
production of food, medicines, timber, fuel and
ﬁbre, but also in ways that are not always apparent
or appreciated. Our natural capital is not only the
source of our food, but also provides less tangible
beneﬁts, such as spiritual enrichment, and areas
for recreation and leisure. Ecosystems also play
important roles in the water cycle, regulating
the ﬂow of water through the landscape, and
the amount of sediments and contaminants
that affect important water resources. These
and other important beneﬁts, called “ecosystem
goods and services”, are essential to our society,
our economic development, and our health and
well-being. Biodiversity loss can have direct, and
sometimes signiﬁcant, human health impacts,
particularly if ecosystem services are no longer
adequate to meet social needs. Indirectly, changes

in ecosystem services aﬀect livelihoods, income,
local migration and, on occasion, may even cause
political conﬂict.
The ﬁrst comprehensive scientiﬁc appraisal of the
condition and trends of ecosystem services for
health and well-being, the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessments,⁶ adopted four major categories of
ecosystem services: provisioning services such
as water, food and timber; regulating services
such as pest control, climate regulation and
regulation of water quality; cultural services
including recreational and spiritual beneﬁts; and
supporting services such as photosynthesis, soil
formation and nutrient cycling. Each category is
vital for human and community health, as well
as ecosystem resilience. The study concluded that
ecosystems processes have changed more rapidly

⁶ While the Millennium Assessment has been instrumental in evaluating the conditions and trends of ecosystems for health,
the notion of ecosystem services can be traced as far back as the 1970s (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010). The impetus
for placing human needs at the centre of biodiversity management is also covered by the 12 principles of the ecosystem
approach adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 5 decision the V/6).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

35

since the mid-twentieth century than at any other
time in recorded human history. Among the 24
categories of ecosystem services assessed, 15 of
them were in a state of decline, the majority of
them regulating and supporting services (MA
2005). Declining services include pollination,
the ability of agricultural systems to provide pest
control, the provision of freshwater, marine ﬁshery
production, and the capacity of the atmosphere
to cleanse itself of pollutants. Most ecosystem
services that were found to be increasing were
provisioning services, including crops, livestock
and aquaculture. Consumption was also increasing
of all services across all four categories. These
increases have helped to generate and sustain
the increases in human health and well-being
seen over the same period. However, the decline
of many other ecosystem services – mostly the
regulating and supporting services – threatens
to undermine this progress, presenting threats
to human health and well-being (Chivian and
Bernstein 2008; Haines-Young and Potschin 2010;
McMichael and Beaglehole 2000), several of which
are described throughout this technical volume.
In general, aggregate terms, socioeconomic
progress has beneﬁted human health and wellbeing, but at a cost to the underlying natural
resource base. Raudsepp-Hearne et al. (2010)
examined several hypotheses to explain this
apparent paradox and call for eﬀorts to expand
our understanding of the complex cross-scale
interactions between ecosystem services, human
activities and human well-being.

3.3 Biodiversity loss, biosphere
integrity and tipping points
Ecosystem management strategies aimed at
maximizing conservation and public health
co-benefits must consider that systems have
emergent properties that are not possessed by
their individual components: they are more
than the sum of their parts. One example is the
resilience of ecosystems to absorb shock in the
face of disturbance (such as pests and disease,
climate change, invasive species, or the harvesting
of crops, animals or timber) and return to their
original structure and functioning. Ecosystems can

36

be transformed if a change in ecosystem structure
crosses a given threshold. Structural changes
may be manifested as a result of the removal
of key predators or other species from the food
web (Thomson et al. 2012), the simpliﬁcation of
vegetation or soil structure, increased or decreased
aridity, species loss and many other factors.
Biodiversity loss is continuing, and in many cases
increasing (Butchart et al. 2010; Tittensor et al.
2014). Biodiversity loss has been identiﬁed as one
of the most critical drivers of ecosystem change
(Hooper et al. 2012). Changes in the diversity of
species that alter ecosystem function may directly
reduce access to ecosystem services such as food,
water and fuel, and also alter the abundance of
species that control critical ecosystem processes
essential to the provision of those services (Chapin
et al. 2000).
Ecosystem regime shifts, including “tipping
points”, have been widely described and
characterized at local levels (for example,
eutrophication of freshwater or coastal areas
due to excess nutrients; collapse of fisheries
due to overﬁshing; shifts of coral reefs to algaedominated systems; see Sheﬀer 2009; CBD 2010).
There is growing concern that regime shifts
could occur at very large spatial scales over the
next several decades, as human–environment
systems exceed limits because of powerful and
widespread driving forces that often act in
combination: climate change, overexploitation of
natural resources, pollution, habitat destruction,
and the introduction of invasive species (Leadley
et al. 2014; Barnosky et al. 2012; Hughes et al.
2013). Cardinale et al. (2012) suggest that the
impacts of biodiversity loss on ecological processes
might be suﬃciently large to rival the impacts of
climate change and many other global drivers of
environmental change.
Leadley et al. describe scenarios for regional-scale
shifts that would have large-scale and profound
implications for human well-being (Leadley
et al. 2014). The unprecedented pressures of
human activity on biodiversity and on the
earth’s ecosystems may also lead to potentially
irreversible consequences at a planetary scale,
and this prospect has led to the identiﬁcation of

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

processes and associated thresholds, and to the
development of various approaches⁷ to deﬁne
preconditions for human development on a
planetary scale (Rockström et al. 2009; Barnosky
et al. 2012, Steﬀen et al. 2015; see also Mace et
al. 2014). Global eﬀorts to pursue sustainable
development will continue to be compromised if
these critical pressures are not countered in a more
rigorous, systematic and integrated fashion.

4. DRIVERS OF CHANGE
In recent decades, the impact of human activity on
the natural environment and its ecosystems has
been so profound that it has given rise to the term
anthropocene, popularized by Nobel prize-winning
chemist Paul Crutzen, delimiting a shift into a new
geological epoch, in which human activity has
become the dominant force for environmental
change (Crutzen 2002). Anthropogenic pressures,
demographic change, and resulting changes in
production and consumption patterns are also
among the factors that contribute to biodiversity
loss, ill-health and disease emergence. These
pressures have shown a “great acceleration”,
especially in the past 50 years (Steﬀen et al.
2015b). While some human-induced changes
have garnered public health beneﬁts, such as the
provision of energy and increased food supply, in
many other cases they have been detrimental to
the environment, ecosystems and corresponding
services, as well as human health (Myers et al.
2013; Cardinale et al. 2012; Balmford and Bond
2005; McMichael and Beaglehole 2000). In many
cases, the ecological implications are immense and
the need to address them pressing if our planet
is to provide clean water, food, energy, timber,
medicines, shelter and other beneﬁts to an everincreasing population. The rise in demographic
pressures and consumption levels will translate
into unprecedented demands on the planet’s

productive capacity, and concomitant pressures
on the earth’s biological resources may undermine
the ability of ecosystems to provide life-sustaining
services (CBD 2010; McMichael and Beaglehole
2000).
Social change and development biases (such
as urbanization, poverty and inequity) further
inﬂuence the drivers of biodiversity loss and illhealth. Macroeconomic policies and structures,
and public policies that provide perverse
incentives or fail to incorporate the value of
biodiversity frequently compound the dual
threat to biodiversity and public health. Both
the impacts of biodiversity loss and ill-health
are likely to be most pronounced among the
world’s poorest, most vulnerable populations,⁸
which are often those most immediately reliant
on natural resources for food, shelter, medicines,
spiritual and cultural fulﬁlment, and livelihoods
(MA 2005). As indicated above, these vulnerable
groups are also generally those least able to access
substitutes when ecosystem services are degraded.
In addition to the immediate usefulness of natural
resources, the intrinsic value of nature to so many,
its cultural and spiritual contributions, and the
right of future generations to inherit a planet
thriving with life also should not be overlooked.
The drivers (causes) of ill-health and human,
animal and plant disease often overlap with the
drivers of biodiversity loss. Some of the principal
common drivers, identiﬁed in the third edition
of Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO 3) and
reiterated in its fourth edition, include: habitat
change, overexploitation and destructive harvest,
pollution, invasive alien species and climate
change (CBD 2010, 2014), all of which may be
exacerbated by environmental changes.

⁷ Rockström and colleagues (2009), updated by Steﬀen et al. (2015), describe nine “planetary boundaries” that have been
identiﬁed: including biosphere integrity (terrestrial and marine); climate change; interference with the nitrogen and
phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidiﬁcation; global freshwater use; changes in land use; chemical
pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading. The metrics used to deﬁne the biodiversity/biosphere integrity planetary
boundaries has been challenged, including biodiversity loss, for its measurement of biodiversity as “global species extinction
rate” and “the abundance, diversity, distribution, functional composition and interactions of species in ecosystems” were
not considered in its 2009 (Mace et al. 2014: 296).
⁸ For example, Butchart et al. (2010) indicate that more than 100 million of the world’s poor people, especially reliant on
biodiversity and the services it provides, live in remote areas within threatened ecoregions.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

37

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK / FLICKR

As the majority of human infectious agents
have originated in animals (known as “zoonotic
diseases”), including the infection leading to
HIV/AIDS (from chimpanzees hunted for human
consumption), animal and environmental links
to human infectious diseases are highly relevant
(Taylor et al. 2001). While the ties between
infectious diseases and biodiversity are perhaps
the most frequently cited, biodiversity loss also
has significant and myriad implications for
noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and the
socioeconomic determinants of health. Examples
of these are highlighted for each of the major
drivers of biodiversity loss identiﬁed above.
The pressing need to jointly address both social
and environmental determinants of health
(Bircher and Kuruvilla 2014) has been widely
acknowledged through various multilateral
agreements. However, the role of biodiversity as a
mediating inﬂuence on human health (through the
loss of ecosystem services, which are themselves
mediated by ecological processes), while gaining
more widespread attention since Rio, merits

38

much more systematic assessment as well as more
structured, coherent, and cross-cutting policies
and strategies. These critical linkages should
be translated into concrete policy targets as we
embark on a new series of global commitments
on sustainable development as the MDGs reach
their term in 2015.

4.1 Habitat change
Land-use change (e.g. full or partial clearing
for agricultural production or natural resource
extraction, such as for as timber, mining and oil) is
the leading driver of biodiversity loss in terrestrial
ecosystems. Alteration of native habitats may also
reduce resilience; for example, deforested areas
may experience soil erosion, increasing ecological
risks of extreme weather events such as sudden
ﬂooding, and limited food production potential
from reduced soil enrichment. Furthermore,
habitat changes such as deforestation directly
alter the capacity of carbon sinks and thus further
increase the risks of climate change.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Land-use change is also the leading driver of
disease emergence in humans from wildlife
(Jones et al. 2008). Changes to habitats, including
through altered species composition (inﬂuenced
by conditions that may more favourably support
carriers of disease, as seen with malariaharbouring vectors in cleared areas of the Amazon)
and/or abundance in an ecosystem (and thus
potential pathogen dispersion and prevalence),
and the establishment of new opportunities for
disease transmission in a given habitat, have
major implications for health. Human-mediated
changes to landscapes are accompanied by human
encroachment into formerly pristine habitats,
often also accompanied by the introduction of
domestic animal species, enabling new types
of interactions among species and thus novel
pathogen transmission opportunities.

4.2 Overexploitation and destructive
harvest
Overexploitation of biodiversity and destructive
harvesting practices reduce the abundance of the
populations of species concerned, and in some
cases, can threaten the survival of the species itself.
Demand for wild-sourced food is increasing in
some areas. The wildlife trade, for purposes such as
supplying the pet trade, medicinal use, horticulture
and luxury goods, is increasing globally,
exacerbating pressures on wild populations.
Practices for harvest, including unregulated
administration of chemicals for the capture of
animals (e.g. the release of cyanide or trawling
practices for ﬁshing) may also have impacts on
non-target species, and/or unsustainable harvests
may alter ecological dynamics, such as diminished
potential for seed dispersion and implications
for food chains (aﬀecting also the humans who
depend on them). As native biodiversity declines,
local protein sources from subsistence hunting or
gathering may be diminished, causing inadequate
nutrition if alternatives are unavailable or lack
necessary nutrients. Additionally, bushmeat
hunting and consumption, sometimes in areas
that have not been previously targeted for food
sourcing (for example, in newly established
mining camps in formerly pristine habitat) may
pose direct novel infectious disease transmission

risks. Intensiﬁcation of harvest and exploitative
practices, such as the mixing of wildlife and
domestic species in markets, as well as the mixing
and spread of their pathogens, can create global
epidemics, as seen with the 2003 outbreak of
severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

4.3 Pollution
Environmental pollution poses direct threats to
both biodiversity and human health in many ways.
Pollutant exposure risk is potentially increased
for top-of-the-chain consumers such as humans
and marine mammals through bioaccumulation
along the food chain, as seen with mercury. Air
pollution exposure presents risks of respiratory
diseases. Other so-called “lifestyle diseases” (such
as obesity and diabetes) may be inﬂuenced by
access to physical ﬁtness, which may be limited
by outdoor and indoor air pollution levels.
Chemicals, such as pharmaceuticals or plastics
containing endocrine-disrupting substances, may
be dispersed on entering water sources and other
environmental settings, posing acute, chronic or
recurring exposures in humans and animals. Widescale application of antimicrobials for human and
animal medicine and food production, much of
which is excreted into the environment, is resulting
in rapid changes to microbial composition, as
well as driving development of antimicrobialresistant infections. Contaminated water may
enable persistence of human infectious agents
and their diseases, such as cholera-causing Vibrio
and parasitic worm-transmitted schistosomiasis.

4.4 Invasive alien species
Invasive alien species (IAS) pose direct threats to
native and/or endemic species. The introduction of
IAS may result in invasive species out-competing
important food and traditional medicine sources for
human populations, as well as causing fundamental
impacts on ecosystems that may inﬂuence health
processes. Examples of this include impaired water
quality from the introduction of zebra mussel in
the United Kingdom and North America, altered
soil quality through the spread of weeds, and the
reduced species decomposition facilitated by feral
pigs grazing on native plants as well as agricultural

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

39

land. In addition to these detrimental impacts, IAS
pose risks of disease introduction and spread for
native wildlife, agricultural species and humans.
As global trade and travel continues to increase, so
do the health risks; changing climactic conditions
may also enable establishment of IAS where
climate would have previously limited survival,
demonstrated with alarming clarity in the case
of the pine mountain beetle invasion in western
Canada.

4.5 Climate change
The direct and indirect impacts of climate change
also pose risks for biodiversity and health;
for example, shifts in species ranges may also
facilitate changes in pathogen distribution and/
or survival, as projected for Nipah virus (Daszak
et al. 2013). Climate change also contributes to
ocean acidiﬁcation, coral bleaching and diseases
in marine life, as reef-building coral species are
threatened with extinction. These in turn have
signiﬁcant implications for the large biological
communities that coral reefs support and that
sustain human health (Campbell et al. 2009). More
extreme weather patterns and rising sea levels
(e.g. drought, ﬂooding, early frost) may also be
detrimental to food and water security, especially
for populations dependent on subsistence farming
and natural water sources. Human populations
may also suﬀer acute health impacts from extreme
weather (e.g. heat or cold exposure injuries).

4.6 Demographic factors, including
migration
In addition to the direct drivers of biodiversity
loss, large-scale societal and demographic
changes, or intensiﬁed reliance on ecosystems
for subsistence or livelihoods, often linked to
biodiversity changes, may also impact vulnerability
to disease. For example, new human inhabitants

(recent immigrants) might not have immunity to
zoonotic diseases endemic to the area, making
them particularly susceptible to infection. Women
who are required to butcher harvested wildlife, or
men who hunt the game, may be particularly at
risk. Moreover, those sectors of society that lack
adequate income to purchase market alternatives
may be more likely to access forest resources
(including wildlife) for food and trade. Thus,
there are likely socioeconomic and gender-speciﬁc
relationships to these types of disease risks and
exposures (WHO 2008). Disease may also worsen
the economic status of a population; vector-borne
and parasitic diseases, the burden of which is
driven by ecological conditions, have been shown
to worsen the poverty cycle (Bonds et al. 2012).

4.7 Urbanization as a challenge and
an opportunity to manage ecosystem
services
Urbanization, the demographic transition from
rural to urban, is associated with shifts from an
agriculture-based economy to mass industry,
technology and service.⁹ With the majority of the
world’s population now living in urban areas and
this proportion expected to increase, it is expected
that urban health should become a major focus
at the intersection of global public health and
conservation policy.¹⁰ Urbanization is also closely
linked with the social determinants of health,
including development, poverty and well-being.
While urbanization is often associated with
increasing prosperity and good health, urban
populations also demonstrate some of the world’s
most prominent health disparities, in both lowand high-income countries. Rapid migration from
rural areas as well as natural population growth are
putting further pressure on limited resources in
cities, and in particular, in low-income countries.¹¹

⁹ For the ﬁrst time in history, the majority of the world’s population lives in cities, and this proportion continues to grow.
One hundred years ago, 20% of the people lived in urban areas. By 2010, this proportion increased to more than half. By
2030, it is expected that the number of people in urban areas will increase to 60%, and in 2050, to 70%. For example, see
World Health Organization Global Health Observatory (GHO) data: urban population growth. (www.who.int/gho/urban_
health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/, accessed 30 May 2015).
¹⁰ To exemplify this trend and consequent shifts in health, WHO has been coordinating initiatives such as the “World Health
Day” and “Urban Health”.
¹¹ World Health Organization. Urban health. (http://www.who.int/topics/urban_health/en/, accessed 30 May 2015).

40

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Much of the natural and migration growth in
urban populations is among the poor. More than
1 billion people – one third of urban dwellers – live
in slum areas, which are often overcrowded and
are aﬀected by life-threatening conditions (UNDP
2005). In low-income countries, disparities will
continue to rise as the combination of migration,
natural growth and scarcity of resources makes it
more diﬃcult to provide the services needed by
city dwellers (UN-Habitat 2013).¹² Poorly planned
or unplanned urbanization patterns also have
negative consequences for the health and safety of
people, including decreased physical activity and
unhealthy diets, which lead to increased risks for
NCDs such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes and
chronic lung disease (WHO 2010).
Urbanization also creates new challenges for
biodiversity conservation; the development of
cities is one of the most important drivers of
land-use change.¹³ Moreover, it was estimated
that up to 88% of protected areas likely to be
aﬀected by new urban growth are in countries
of low-to-moderate income (McDonald et al.
2008). While cities typically develop in proximity
to the most biologically diverse areas (Seto et al.
2011), relatively little attention has been paid
to how cities can be more biodiverse or to the
importance of maintaining biodiverse ecosystems
for human health (Andersson et al. 2014). Several
health beneﬁts can potentially be derived from
integrating biodiversity into urban planning
schemes, and broader conservation and public
health policies.

5. INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY
AND HUMAN HEALTH:
APPROACHES AND FRAMEWORKS
In large part, the biodiversity and health
sectors have worked separately to achieve their
respective goals. To better integrate biodiversity

and health in research and policy, the adoption
of multidisciplinary approaches that incorporate
contributions from both the social and natural
sciences is needed. The EcoHealth, One Health
and “one medicine” approaches are part of a family
of approaches that aim to bridge human health
and the health of other species or ecosystems
(whether deﬁned as disease outcomes, and/or the
functioning of an ecosystem/provisioning of its
services) to address complex challenges faced by
the global health and environmental communities.
In this volume, they are referred to as “One Health
approaches”.
They are also closely related to the ecosystem
approach adopted under the CBD.¹⁴ While
evolving from diﬀerent sectors (the one medicine
approach from veterinary and human medicine,
with a focus on comparative medicine and links
between livelihoods, nutrition and health; the
Ecosystem and EcoHealth approach from the
ecology and biodiversity communities, focusing
on ecosystem, societal and health links; and the
One Health approach primarily from conservation
medicine, with a focus on public and animal
health, development and sustainability) (Zinsstag
et al. 2011), at their core they share the common
goal of a more comprehensive understanding of
the ecosystem-based dynamics of health (e.g.
socioecological systems) than can be yielded
through a single-species perspective alone.
Given the integral links between biodiversity
and human health, these approaches consider
the connections between humans, animals and
the environment, and can thus promote a more
complete understanding of mutual dependencies,
risks and solutions. These perspectives allow us to
move beyond single-silo viewpoints (e.g. human
or veterinary medicine exclusively) to a broader
and more upstream consideration of the drivers,
detection, control and prevention of disease.

¹² World Health Organization. WHO Global Health Observatory (GHO) data: urban population growth. (www.who.int/gho/
urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/, accessed 30 May 2015).
¹³ For each new resident, rich countries add an average of 355 square meters of built-up area, middle-income countries 125
square meters, and low-income countries 85 square meters (McDonald et al. 2008).
¹⁴ https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

41

The value of One Health approaches is increasingly
being appreciated for infectious disease prevention
and control, seeing application for zoonotic
diseases such as avian inﬂuenza and rabies (Gibbs
et al. 2014), and based on the overlapping drivers
of disease emergence and spread and biodiversity
loss, as well as domestic animal–wildlife and
human transmission cycles (GBO3; Jones et al.
2008). In addition, One Health and Ecosystem
approaches have wider potential applications and
beneﬁts, including the following:
1) to help inform our understanding of the
health services provided by biodiversity, as well
as how anthropogenic changes to an ecosystem or
biodiversity may impact disease risks. Ecosystems
may provide health-beneﬁting functions, such as
toxin remediation by ﬁltration mechanisms in
wetlands (Blumenfeld et al. 2009). These functions
and their underlying mechanisms may be missed
when focusing on a single species;
2) to provide important knowledge for
conservation and agricultural  efforts, given
the impacts of disease on agricultural and wild
species. Several disease risks for human and
domestic animals also pose risks for biodiversity;
for example, while primarily maintained by
domestic dogs, wildlife represents the majority
of species susceptible to rabies, with some wild
canid populations suﬀering severe declines from
the disease (Machalaba and Karesh 2012);
3) for assessment of environmental health
exposures and outcomes; in addition to being
possible links in the food chain, wildlife may serve
as sentinels for ecosystem changes and potential
human risks, as seen with Ebola (Karesh and Cook
2005) as well as toxin exposures (Buttke 2011).
As shown in Figure 1, this may lead to earlier
detection and possible prevention and mitigation
opportunities (Karesh et al. 2012).
Implementation of a One Health approach brings
multiple sectors together to view our shared health
across an ecosystem or speciﬁc disease challenge.
Employing multispecies disease surveillance or
risk analysis, with data sharing across human,
agriculture and environment experts, can help

42

move from our currently reactive public health
measures to more preventive actions; similarly,
this may beneﬁt biodiversity and maintenance
of ecosystem services through consideration
of another potential aspect of impacts to an
ecosystem.
Involvement of the social sciences, including
disciplines such as economics and anthropology,
can help to further address socioecological
challenges, incorporating the social as well as
environmental determinants of health. Synergies
across these and other sectors may lead to cost–
eﬀective and more upstream disease prevention
and management strategies, as well as have
implications for biodiversity. In addition to
interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration,
addressing the common challenges faced by the
global health and biodiversity conservation
communities also necessitates the engagement
of many stakeholders, including governments,
civil society, nongovernmental and international
organizations, as well as indigenous peoples
and local communities. Through integrated
approaches such as the One Health approach,
researchers, practitioners, policy-makers and
other stakeholders are better able to unravel the
intricate web of challenges that they jointly face,
and generate new insights and knowledge to ﬁnd
common solutions or, when these are not possible,
carefully assess and manage trade-oﬀs (Romanelli
et al. 2014a,b).
Recently, the Intergovernmental science-policy
Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
has developed a conceptual framework linking
biodiversity, ecosystem services and human wellbeing (Díaz et al. 2015 a,b). The framework draws
upon the Millennium Assessment framework, but
goes further in highlighting the role of institutions,
and in explicitly embracing diﬀerent disciplines
and knowledge systems (including indigenous
and local knowledge) in the co-construction of
assessments of the state of the world’s biodiversity
and the beneﬁts it provides to humans.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

6. CONCLUSION: A THEMATIC
APPROACH TO COMMON
LINKAGES
There is a pressing need to better understand
the relationship between biodiversity and
public health, and this volume seeks to make a
contribution to this imperative. We already know
that biodiversity and corresponding ecosystem
services, and public health intersect on numerous
fronts and these linkages are further explored in
each of the thematic sections that follow.
This demands an understanding of biodiversity’s
fundamental contribution to essential lifesupporting services, such as air and water quality
and food provision. It also requires mapping the
role of biodiversity in human health on many
other fronts, including nutritional composition;
micro- and macronutrient availability and NCDs;
its applicability in traditional medicine and
biomedical research that relies on plants, animals
and microbes to understand human physiology;
and its relationship with processes affecting
infectious disease reservoirs. We also need to
further explore the role of microbial diversity in
our internal biomes in human health and disease;
the threats of IAS to ecosystems and human
health; the positive feedback loops associated
with climate change; and many other associations.
Our current state of knowledge of these and other
themes is explored in greater detail in each of
the thematic sections included in Part II of this
technical volume.
While there has been considerable scientific
progress in understanding these linkages, much
more interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral work is
needed to assess the full breadth of causal links
between environmental change, biodiversity,

ecosystem processes and services, and the
ultimate impacts on human health, which are
not easily reduced to simple causal chains.
These links are frequently non-linear¹⁵ (Kremen
2005), diﬃcult to predict, and are sometimes
irreversible as biotic–abiotic interactions largely
occur at the level of ecological processes rather
than in the delivery of the services themselves¹⁶
(Carpenter et al. 2009; Mace 2012). The diﬃculties
inherent in determining these causal links in no
way diminishes the importance of seeking to
identify them.
Understanding the links between the weakening
of ecosystem services and human health is
essential to shaping robust policies, expanding
our scientiﬁc understanding of the health needs
of human communities, and to meeting new and
existing challenges to public health in the face of
global environmental change (McMichael and
Beaglehole 2000).
Although the links between biodiversity and
human health are fundamental, they are often
diﬀused in space and time, and there are a number
of actors that moderate the critical underlying
relationships. To date, work at the biodiversity–
health nexus has been insuﬃcient, which may at
least in part be explained by these diﬀuse links.
While One Health and similar approaches have
begun to garner greater international acceptance,
the primary focus of interventions in the public
health sector continue to tend toward curative
interventions rather than preventive (upstream)
interventions, which also consider the social and
environmental determinants of health. A powerful
argument can be made for the critical need to
incorporate these dimensions to improve public
health outcomes.

¹⁵ As Carpenter et al. (2009) have noted, some drivers may aﬀect human health without aﬀecting biodiversity or the services
it provides, or some ecosystem processes may aﬀect drivers directly.
¹⁶ This diﬃculty has been attributed to the fact that causal links can be non-linear or bypass some processes altogether.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

43

COMSTOCK/THINKSTOCK

PART II

Thematic Areas in
Biodiversity & Health

SAM PHELPS/UNHCR/ FLICKR

3. Freshwater, wetlands,
biodiversity and human health
1. Introduction
The centrality of water to human and ecosystem
health is readily apparent, yet often neglected.
Manipulating and adapting to changes in water
levels – dealing with water scarcity, ﬂooding or
storms – has been instrumental for civilizational
survival, and this will continue as climate change
proceeds. The immense demand for water posed
by modern industry, agriculture, aquaculture,
forestry, mining, energy generation and human
consumption combine to exacerbate pressures
on water quality and quantity. Such threats to
freshwater and other aquatic ecosystems cannot
be viewed in isolation from their impacts on
human health and well-being (Carr and Neary
2008).
In addition to direct health impacts (such as
water-related illnesses), degradation caused by
human activity (such as unsustainable agricultural
practices) also aﬀects access to sanitation, increases
the time invested in reaching water resources, and
hinders the capacity for local food production.
Based on recent World Health Organization
(WHO) estimates, some 768 million people, the
majority from low-income countries, still rely

on unimproved water supplies that are believed
to have high levels of pathogen contamination
(WHO 2013; WHO and UNICEF 2012; PrüssUstün et al. 2014).¹ This reinforces the ongoing
importance of ensuring freshwater quality and
supply from natural ecosystems for the control
and regulation of waterborne and water-related
diseases, in particular for the world’s poorest,
most vulnerable populations, who already carry
a disproportionate portion of the global burden
of disease.
As discussed in this chapter and in the wide
breadth of scientiﬁc research in this area, the
ecosystems that sustain our water resources are
complex, and the often irreversible harm that they
sustain can be linked to public health outcomes.
More judicious management and use of our water
resources and aquatic ecosystems, coupled with
improved access to clean water, sanitation and safe
energy sources are critical, intimately related goals
(and challenges). As the last section of this chapter
reiterates, these will demand the application of
a holistic, cross-sectoral approach, such as the
ecosystem or One Health approach, and equally
integrated solutions that transcend disciplinary,
sectoral and political boundaries.

¹ As deﬁned by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water and Sanitation (Prüss-Ustün et al. 2014).

46

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

2. Water resources: an essential
ecosystem service
Freshwater is a provisioning ecosystem service
(MA, 2005a) and is important for several aspects
of human health. All terrestrial freshwater
ecosystems, forests, wetlands, soil and mountain
ecosystems play a role in underpinning the water
cycle, including regulating nutrient cycling and
soil erosion (Russi et al. 2012; Coates and Smith
2012), and managing pollution (Schwarzenbach et
al. 2010; Horwitz et al. 2012). Many of the world’s
major rivers begin in mountain highlands, and
more than half of the human population relies on
fresh water ﬂowing from these areas (MA 2005b).
It has been estimated that mountain ecosystems
contribute between 32% and 63% to the mean
annual river basin discharge, and supply around
95% of the total annual river discharge in some
arid areas (Viviroli et al. 2003). Biodiversity is
central to the ecological health of mountain
ecosystems and river basins.
Water and soil conservation services of forests
vary among biomes, landscapes and forest types.
In many regions, forests improve surface soil
protection and enhance soil inﬁltration, prevent
soil erosion and landslides, protect riverbanks
against abrasion, and regulate microclimate
(CBD 2012; Naiman and Décamps 1997). For
example, cloud forests can increase dry season
ﬂow and total water yield (see e.g. Hamilton
1995; Bruijnzeel 2004; Balmford and Bond 2005).
Natural forests enhance river water quality by
preventing soil erosion, trapping sediments,
and removing nutrient and chemical pollutants,
reducing microbial contamination (fecal coliform

bacteria, cryptosporidium, fungal pathogens)
of water resources, and preventing salinization
(Cardinale et al. 2012; CBD 2012). Analyses of
ﬂood frequency in low-income countries have
found that the slope, amount of natural/nonnatural forest cover and degraded area explain
65% of variation in ﬂood frequency (Bradshaw et
al. 2007), and is linked to the number of people
displaced and killed by such events, though
associations with larger ﬂooding events linked to
extreme weather are not conclusive (van Dijk et al.
2009). This has implications for the development
of improved disaster risk reduction strategies (see
also the chapter on resilience and disaster risk
reduction in Part III of this volume).
It is widely accepted that water puriﬁcation services
provided by biodiverse ecosystems underpin
water quality, which is a universal requirement
for maintaining human health. For example, the
hydrological, chemical and biological processes of
wetlands signiﬁcantly ameliorate water quality.²
Groundwater is also a major source of water for
drinking and/or irrigation but also a potential
source of pathogenic microorganisms (Gerba
and Smith 2005; Lapworth et al. 2012). While
biodiversity, including species diversity, may be a
source of disease emergence, in some cases, high
species diversity in vertebrate hosts of vectors can
play a beneﬁcial role by impeding dominance by
particular species that act as key reservoirs of the
pathogens (Ostfeld and Keesing 2000).³

2.1 The role of species diversity
The loss of species hinders the ability of
ecosystems to provide ecosystem services such

² For example, based on a thorough review of 169 studies examining hydrological functions of wetlands, Bullock and Acreman
(2003) reported that (1) wetlands signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the global hydrological cycle, (2) wetland functions vary among
diﬀerent wetland hydrological types, (3) ﬂoodplain wetlands reduce or delay ﬂoods, (4) some wetlands in the headwaters
of rivers increase ﬂood ﬂow volumes, sometimes increasing ﬂood peaks, (5) some wetlands increase river ﬂows during the
dry season, and (6) some wetlands, such as ﬂoodplain wetlands hydrologically connected to aquifers, recharge groundwater
when ﬂooded. Mangrove wetlands are also eﬀective in removing heavy metals from water (Marchand et al. 2012).
³ Increased species diversity can reduce disease risk in some cases by regulating the abundance of an important host species
(Rudolf & Antonovics 2005), or by redistributing vector meals in the case of vector-borne diseases (Van Buskirk and Ostfeld
1995; Norman et al. 1999; LoGiudice et al. 2003). In practice, transmission reduction can occur when adding species reduces
pathogen load or the pathogen’s titre (i.e. the concentration of an antibody, as determined by ﬁnding the highest dilution
at which it is still able to cause agglutination of the antigen) within the host (Keesing et al. 2006). For a more thorough
review on the role of biodiversity in disease emergence, see the chapter on infectious diseases in this volume.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

47

as the ﬁltering of pollutants. Numerous scientiﬁc
studies have shown that ﬁlter feeders play an
important role in the elimination of suspended
particles from water and its puriﬁcation (Newell
2004; Ostroumov 2005, 2006). Bivalve molluscs
of both marine and freshwater environments
have the ability to ﬁltrate large amounts of water
(Newell 2004; Ostroumov 2005). It has also been
found that molluscs may reduce pharmaceuticals
and drugs of abuse from urban sewage (Binellia
et al. 2014). The mussel species Diplodon chilensis
chilensis (Gray 1828), Hyriidae, native of Chilean
and Argentinean freshwater habitats, play a key
role in reducing eutrophication, both by reducing
total phosphorus (PO4 and NH4) by about one
order of magnitude and also by controlling
phytoplankton densities. These mussels also
contribute to increasing bottom heterogeneity
and macrocrustacean abundance, and attract
predatory ﬁsh. Thus, the mussels provide energy
and a nutrient source to the benthic and pelagic
food webs, contributing to more rapid recycling
of organic matter and nutrients (Soto and Mena
1999).
Economic valuations of water as a habitat for
freshwater species diversity have been carried out.⁴
The ﬁrst estimate of the global values of ecosystem
goods (e.g. food in the form of aquatic species),
services (e.g. waste assimilation), biodiversity
and cultural considerations yielded a value of US$
6579 x 109/year for all inland waters, exceeding
the worth of all other non-marine ecosystems
combined (US$ 5740 x 109/year), despite the far
smaller extent of inland waters (Costanza et al.
1997). It follows that biodiversity conservation
or restoration can be an eﬀective, eﬃcient and
cost–eﬀective way of improving water quality
and wastewater management. Plant and algae
species diversity enhances the uptake of nutrient
pollutants from water and soil (e.g. Cardinale et
al. 2012), and some animals (such as copepod
Epischura baikalensis in Lake Baikal, Russia; see

Mazepova 1998) and plant species enhance the
purity of water. For example, Moringa oleifera seeds
and Maerua decumbens roots are used for clarifying
and disinfecting water in Kenya (PACN 2010). Yet,
habitat degradation and biodiversity loss often
continue to hamper the ability of ecosystems to
provide water puriﬁcation services and to decrease
the quality of water available.⁵

2.2 Social costs of impaired water
quality
Ecosystems play an essential role in regulating
water quantity and quality, which are also primary
factors aﬀecting food production, essential for
sustaining human health and livelihoods. For
example, wetlands directly support the health
and livelihood of many people worldwide through
the provision of important food items such as
rice and ﬁsh (Horwitz et al. 2012). There are
multiple mental health beneﬁts of experiencing a
natural environment, including, for example, the
contribution of spiritual and recreational values of
wetlands to human psychological and social wellbeing (see also chapter 12 in this volume).
Impaired water quality results in signiﬁcant social
and economic costs, and ecosystem degradation
is a major cause of declines in water quality.
Rectifying poor-quality water through artiﬁcial
means (such as water treatment plants) requires
substantial investment and operational costs. Left
untreated, poor-quality water results in massive
burdens on human health, with women, children
and the poor being the most aﬀected. Reﬂecting
this priority, many protected areas and special
reserves have also been established to protect
water supplies, including fresh water for urban
areas (Blumenfeld et al. 2009). For example, 33 of
105 of the world’s largest cities source their clean
water from protected areas (Ervin et al. 2010; see
also Box 1).

⁴ Some of these studies also indicate that the services that such diversity provides are an essential driver of behavioural change.
See the section on behavioural change in the chapter on Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 Development
Agenda in Part III of this volume.
⁵ Moreover, while water quality can be monitored through chemical analysis, long-term trends in freshwater ecosystems may
be best monitored using the diversity of aquatic organisms (such as benthic invertebrates) as proxy indicators for measuring
water quality and ecosystem health.

48

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 1. The Catskills: an ecosystem service for over 10 million people
The Catskills mountains were named a forest reserve in 1885 and are one of several important
examples of the fact that cost–e ective biodiversity and health co-bene ts are achievable. In the
three decades that followed the creation of the forest reserve, the high value of the life-supporting
services provided by the mountains became apparent; rather than investing large sums of money
on ltering water supplies, the state of New ork invested in creating reservoirs in the Catskills park,
beginning with the Ashokan Reservoir in 1898. Today, the New ork watershed provides the largest
un ltered water supply in the United States and provides an estimated 1.3 billion gallons of drinking
water to over 10 million residents daily. To this day, water quality standards mandated by the United
States (US) Environmental Protection Agency have been met without the need for water ltration
services, whose estimated costs would have run into billions of US dollars. It has been estimated that
New ork city avoided 6–8 billion in expenses over a 10 year period, by protecting its watersheds.
More recently, the important role of the Catskills as a breeding site for sh has also been recognized.
The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development was founded in 1969, and has been
advocating for the park since. To this day, the Catskills provide much of New ork State s highestquality drinking water as well as a relaxing recreational site for tourists and locals alike. E orts to ban
high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale oil in the surrounding areas stem from concerns about its
impact on water quality. There are also serious concerns about the potential of drought related to
climate change having a signi cant impact on this vital ecosystem service.
Sources: Frei et al. 2002; MA 2005a; see also http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/no_time_to_stop_on_fracking

3. Dual threats to freshwater
ecosystems and human health
Altered waterways and human development (e.g.
construction of dams, irrigation canals, urban
drainage systems, encouraging settlements close
to water bodies) can all provide beneﬁts to human
communities. However, related infrastructure
may not only be costly to build and maintain,
but is also often accompanied by new risks to the
environment (e.g. ﬂood risk from degradation
of coastal wetlands) and public health, including
emergence of disease (Horwitz et al. 2012; Myers
and Patz, 2009).⁶ These activities can diminish
native biodiversity and increase waterborne or
water-related illnesses, such as schistosomiasis or
malaria (discussed in section 3; see also chapter

on infectious diseases in this volume), including
neglected tropical diseases such as trachoma,
onchocerciasis (Hotez and Kamath 2009),
lymphatic ﬁlariasis (Erlanger et al. no date), or
guinea-worm disease (Fenwick 2006).
Freshwater ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes and
wetlands, face disproportionately high levels of
threats to biodiversity due largely to demands on
water (for a recent comprehensive review of the
state of the world’s wetlands and their services to
people, see Garner et al. 2015). In some regions, up
to 95% of wetlands have been lost and two thirds
of the world’s largest rivers are now moderately
to severely fragmented by dams and reservoirs
(UNEP 2012). Freshwater species have declined
at a rate faster than any other biome, with the

⁶ Waterborne diseases have been classiﬁed into four types: those spread through contaminated drinking water such as cholera;
those linked to poor sanitation such as typhoid; those transmitted by vectors reliant on freshwater bodies for at least one
stage in their life-cycles, such as malaria; and those that involve an aquatic animal to serve as an intermediate host, such
as schistosomiasis (e.g. Resh 2009).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

49

sharpest decline in tropical freshwater biomes.⁷
More than one third of the accessible renewable
freshwater on earth is consumptively used for
agriculture, industrial and domestic purposes
(Schwarzenbach et al. 2006), which often leads
to chemical pollution of natural water sources, a
cause for major concern in many parts of the world
(Schwarzenbach et al. 2010). It has been estimated
that approximately 67% of global water withdrawal
and 87% of consumptive water use (withdrawal
minus return ﬂow) is for irrigation purposes
(Shiklomanov 1997; see also Box 2 case study
on cotton). This has drained wetlands, lowered
water tables and salinized water sources through
intrusion and diminished water ﬂows in key river
systems; some of these, such as the Colorado delta
(Glenn et al. 1996) and Yellow river, China (Chen
et al. 2003) now periodically fail to reach the sea.
The oceans are similarly challenged: an estimated
38% decline in coral reefs has occurred since 1980,
largely as a result of climate change, which is also
causing changes in ocean habitat and sea levels,
concurrent with ocean acidiﬁcation (UNEP 2012).
As discussed in the subsections that follow, threats
to water resources and ecosystems (both freshwater
and marine) often present equally signiﬁcant
threats to human health. Other human activity,
such as the use of pharmaceuticals or antibiotics,
dam construction and mining activities also have
signiﬁcant direct and indirect, albeit unintended,
consequences on water resources and public
health. Ecotoxicological data on environmental
exposure to pharmaceuticals and persistent
substances such as anti-inflammatory drugs,
antiepileptics, beta-blockers, antidepressants,
antineoplastics, analgesics and contraceptives
indicate a range of negative impacts on freshwater
resources, ecosystems, living organisms and,
ultimately, some aspects of human health (see
Santos et al. 2010; Lapworth et al. 2012). The
use of sex hormones and veterinary growth

hormones can lead to bioaccumulation, and have
been linked to endocrine disruption (Caliman and
Gavrilescu 2009) and reproductive dysfunction
(Khan et al. 2005), all of which pose dual threats
to biodiversity and to the health of people who are
reliant on freshwater resources (see also chapter
on biodiversity, health care, and pharmaceuticals
in this volume). As discussed in subsection 3.4,
other causes of bioaccumulation include human
activities such as mining.

3.1: Eutrophication, human health and
ecosystem healthƿ
Eutrophication, caused by the input of nutrients
in water bodies and characterized by excessive
plant and algal growth, is both a slow, naturally
occurring phenomenon and a process accelerated
by human activity (cultural eutrophication). The
latter is caused by excessive point source (from
a single identiﬁable source of contaminants) and
non-point source (without a speciﬁc point of
discharge) pollution; the most common causes
include leaching from fertilized agricultural
areas, sewage from urban areas and industrial
wastewater.
The input of nutrients most commonly associated
with eutrophication – phosphorus (e.g. in
detergents) and nitrogen (e.g. agricultural runoﬀ) – into lakes, reservoirs, rivers and coastal
marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, have
been widely recognized as a major threat to both
water ecosystems and human health. In freshwater
environments, cultural eutrophication is known
to greatly accelerate algal blooms. In marine
and estuarine systems, the enhanced inputs of
phosphorus and nitrogen often result in a rise of
cyanobacteria and dinoﬂagellates. The eﬀects of
eutrophication include the following:

•

toxic cyanobacteria poisonings (CTPs)

⁷ Based on data on the freshwater Living Planet Index (LPI), the decline in freshwater species was greater than any other
biome between 1970 and 2008, although global terrestrial marine indices have also sharply declined. The freshwater LPI
considers 2849 populations of 737 species of ﬁsh, birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals found in temperate and tropical
freshwater lakes, rivers and wetlands. Among them, tropical freshwater species declined more than any other biome. Data
prior to 1970 are not captured due to insuﬃcient data (WWF 2012). For further discussion on the global status of species
declines, see also Global Biodiversity Outlook, fourth edition (CBD 2014).
⁸ Shaw et al. 2003; Carmichael, 2001; EEA 2005; Shaw and Lam 2007; Chorus and Bartram 1999; WHO 1999

50

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

•

increased biomass of phytoplankton and
macrophyte vegetation

•

increased biomass of consumer species

• shifts to bloom-forming algal species that
might be toxic or inedible
• increase in blooms of gelatinous zooplankton
(marine environments)
• increased biomass of benthic and epiphytic
algae
• changes in species composition of macrophyte
vegetation
•

decline in coral reef health and loss of coral reef
communities

•

increased incidence of ﬁsh kills

•

reduction in species diversity of harvestable
ﬁsh and shellﬁsh

•

water treatment and ﬁltration problems

•

oxygen depletion

•

decreases in perceived aesthetic value of the
water body.
It was found that eutrophication occurs in
approximately 54% of Asia-Pacific, 53% of
European, 48% of North American, 41% of
South American and 28% of African lakes.
Eutrophication can cause considerable harm to
freshwater, marine ecosystems, and terrestrial
ecosystems and the life that inhabits them;
these impacts can range from wild and domestic
animal illness and death to equally far-ranging
consequences for human health. For example,
in 1996, a routine haemodialysis treatment
at a dialysis centre in Caruaru, Brazil led to an
outbreak of cyanotoxin human toxicosis. Among
130 patients aﬀected, almost 90% experienced
visual disturbances, nausea and vomiting, 100 of
them developed acute liver failure and 70 died;
53 of these deaths were attributed to what is now
known as the “Caruaru syndrome.”

Medical facilities are only one of several potential
routes of exposure to human toxicity from
cyanotoxins; others include the recreational
use of lakes and rivers, and the consumption of
drinking water, algal dietary supplements and
food crops, among others. In addition to Brazil,
health problems attributed to the presence of
cyanotoxins in drinking water have been reported
in a number of countries, including Australia,
China, England, South Africa and the United
States.

3.2 Proliferation of cyanobacteria
caused by eutrophication
The discharge of nutrients in waterways can lead
to eutrophication. Under eutrophic conditions,
nutrient loading indirectly decreases the amount
of oxygen in the water and eventually eliminates
certain species. In oxygen-depleted water, fecal
pathogens may proliferate and the risk of enteric
disease transmission increases (Fuller et al. 1995).
In addition, wherever conditions of temperature,
light and nutrient status are conducive, surface
waters may host increased growth of algae or
cyanobacteria. This phenomenon is referred to
as an algal or cyanobacterial bloom (see section
3.1). Problems associated with cyanobacteria
are likely to increase in eutrophic areas, such as
those with high sewage discharge and agriculture
practices (WHO 1999). Species of cyanobacteria
may produce toxins that aﬀect the neuromuscular
system and liver, and can be carcinogenic to
vertebrates, including humans.
Among the 14 000 species of continental algae,
about 2000 are cyanobacteria and 19 genera
produce toxins. Cyanotoxins show speciﬁc toxic
mechanisms in vertebrates, some of which
are strong neurotoxins (anatoxin-a, anatoxina(s), saxitoxins) and others are primarily
toxic to the liver (microcystins, nodularin
and cylindrospermopsin). Microcystins are
geographically most widely distributed in
freshwaters (WHO 1999). They bioaccumulate in
common aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates,
including ﬁsh, mussels and zooplankton (Ibelings
and Chorus 2007). Cases were reported in the Latin
American and Carribbean region. For example, in

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

51

UNITED NATIONS PHOTO / FOTER / CC BY-NC-ND

a hypertrophic reservoir in Argentina, if a 70 kg
person would consume 100 g of ﬁsh (Odontesthes
bonariensis), the equivalent of approximately
0.49 mg/kg body weight/day would be consumed
(Cazenave et al. 2005), which is in excess of the
range of the seasonal tolerable daily intake (TDI)
(0.4 mg/kg/day). In Brazil, concentrations of
microcystins in edible parts of Tilapia rendalli were
examined during the cyanobacterial bloom season.
Concentrations varied between 0.0029 and 0.337
mg/g muscle tissue. Consumption of 300 g of ﬁsh
with this highest concentration would exceed the
seasonal TDI by four times. The amount of toxin in
Tilapia livers has been found to reach levels as high
as 31.1 mg/g wet weight (Freitas de Magalhães et
al. 2001), so that in a typical meal, an adult could
be exposed to hundreds of times the seasonal
TDI. Common advice given by water authorities
is that the viscera of the ﬁsh should not be eaten,
but caution should be exercised in all cases where
major toxic blooms occur.
Where bloom formation is well characterized
in terms of annual cycles, the health risk may

52

similarly be low if control measures are in place for
times of bloom formation. If regular monitoring
of source phytoplankton is in place, waters
presenting no signiﬁcant cyanotoxin risk may
be easily identiﬁed (see review in WHO 1999).
Substantially less is known about the removal of
neurotoxins and cylindrospermopsin than about
microcystins, thus toxin monitoring of treatment
steps and ﬁnished water is especially important.
Methods such as adsorption by some types of
granular activated carbon and oxidation can be
eﬀective in cyanotoxin removal (WHO 1999).

3.3 Multiresistant bacteria: new
approaches in sewage treatment
The use of antibiotics in hospitals, for swine and
poultry production, and in ﬁsh farms can result
in routes of dissemination of multiresistant
bacteria and their genes of resistance into the
environment, thus contaminating water resources
and having a serious negative impact on public
health. Antibiotics are widely used to protect the
health of humans and domesticated animals, and/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

or to increase the growth rate of animals as food
additives. The use of antibiotics may accelerate
the development of antibiotic resistance genes
(ARGs) in bacteria and other pathogens, which
pose health risks to humans and animals (Kemper
2008; see also the chapter on health care and
impact of pharmaceuticals on biodiversity in this
volume). The introduction of these new genes can
alter the biology of pathogens because ARGs can
be transmitted to other species of bacteria (Heuer
et al. 2002; Tennstedt et al. 2003). Therefore, even
common strains of pathogens may incorporate
these genes and become resistant to antibiotics.
The only way to detect multiresistant bacteria is by
performing a DNA microarray. However, this kind
of procedure is not yet common in health centres.
Perhaps the most eﬀective and direct approach
to reduce the possibility of the introduction and
spread of ARGs is the controlled use of antibiotics
in health protection and agriculture production.
New and eﬀective wastewater treatment processes
are also needed to improve removal eﬃciency of
ARGs in sewage treatment plants. Additionally,
irrigation using wastewater has to be discussed
thoroughly, considering possible introduction of
ARGs in the soil and groundwater (Zhang et al.
2009).

3.4 Bioaccumulation: the impact of
mining
Many mining activities discharge mercury
(Hg) and methyl Hg in aquatic ecosystems,
thereby contaminating water, ecosystems and
aquatic species with a correspondingly negative
repercussion on human health. (For a recent
review of freshwater ﬁsh species in Africa please
see Hannah et al. 2015.)
There are many ways by which Hg can reach
aquatic ecosystems. Major anthropogenic sources
are artisanal and small-scale gold-mining (ASGM)
activities, which use Hg to amalgamate with gold
(Veiga et al. 2014), and deforestation and burning

of organic matter, which can remobilize Hg from
the soil into the food chain (Passos and Mergler
2008). ASGM activities account for approximately
12% of all gold produced worldwide (Veiga et
al. 2014), and to produce 1 mg of gold, 2.5–3.5
mg of Hg are used, of which approximately 50%
reaches streams and rivers as suspended sediment
(UNEP 2013). Metallic Hg is also emitted into the
atmosphere as a result of ASGM activities, and is
reduced into inorganic Hg and precipitated into
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
While Hg remains in the soil, it is often in its
inorganic form, less toxic, but when it reaches
water courses, microorganisms may transform
it to a more toxic form, methyl Hg (Hacon and
Azevedo 2006). Methyl Hg can bioaccumulate
in the tissue of organisms and through the food
chain, as they are consumed by other species. It
can also reach human populations through ﬁsh
consumption (Passos and Mergler 2008). In
human populations, methyl Hg is neurotoxic and
prenatal exposure can aﬀect brain development,
even at low doses of exposure⁹. Children exposed
to methyl Hg may have delayed and impaired
neurodevelopment, and exposed adults may have
impaired motor coordination, visual ﬁelds, speech
and hearing (UNEP, UNICEF, WHO 2002).
Methyl Hg was found in high concentrations
in ﬁsh and shellﬁsh, which are also the primary
sources of exposure to human populations (Veiga
et al. 1994; Porvari 1995; Fearnside 1999). In
the Guri hydroelectric reservoir in Venezuela,
from 219 ﬁsh samples, 93 specimens showed
levels above 0.5 ppm Hg and up to 90% of the
most appreciated piscivore ﬁsh in the region
(Rhaphiodon vulpinus) showed average Hg levels
of 2.7 ppm (0.17–8.25 ppm) (UNIDO 1996) –
higher than those found in detritivorous and
herbivorous ﬁsh species. Contamination through
methyl Hg is particularly high in the Amazonian
region. Several Amazonian communities have
Hg levels considered to be critical for optimal
neurological development. Dietary Hg intake has

⁹ For a summary of the health impacts associated with mercury exposure and the identiﬁcation of potential pathways for
strategic action see also World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/phe/news/Mercury-ﬂyer.pdf. For guidance on
assessing the risk of mercury exposure to humans see also WHO-UNEP (2008), available at http://www.who.int/foodsafety/
publications/chem/mercuryexposure.pdf?ua=1

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

53

been estimated to be 1–2 μg/kg/day, considerably
higher than the WHO recommendation (0.23 μg/
kg/day) (Passos and Mergler 2008).
The reduction or elimination of Hg use in
ASGM has been receiving widespread attention
(Veiga 2014). Less damaging options include
amalgamating a gold concentrate rather than the
whole ore and using “mercury-free artisanal gold”,
in which gold is isolated by centrifuges and the
gangue materials magnetically removed (Drace
et al. 2012). Awareness and education about Hg
poisoning in ASGM communities is also essential
to ensuring adherence to such changes in ASGM
technology.

4. Impacts of agriculture on water
ecosystems and human health
Unsustainable agricultural practices have
signiﬁcant impacts on human health, and water
pollution from fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides
remains a serious problem (see the chapter on
agricultural biodiversity and food security in
this volume). Better use of ecosystem services,
underpinned by biodiversity, in agricultural
production systems provides considerable
opportunities to reverse these impacts on health
while simultaneously improving food security.
Agriculture accounts for about 70% of global
water use, and physical water scarcity is already a
problem for more than 1.6 billion people (IWMI
2007). It is increasingly recognized that the
management of land and water are inextricably
linked (e.g. DEFRA 2004). In England, for
example, up to 75% of sediment loading in rivers
can be attributed to agriculture, while 60% of
nitrate pollution and 25% of phosphates in surface
waters originates from agriculture (DEFRA 2007).
Agricultural practices can also contribute to the
spread of water-related and waterborne disease.
For example, signiﬁcant E. coli loads have been
found in run-oﬀ from land grazed by cattle and
treated with livestock wastes (Oliver et al. 2005),
all of which impact the quality of water for human
consumption and use.

54

Natural vegetation cover in buﬀers along rivers is
critical to the regulation of water ﬂow, retention of
nutrients, and capture of pollutants and sediments
across landscapes (reviewed in Osborne and
Kovacic 1993). The removal of trees and natural
habitats in landscapes aﬀects soil directly, as well
as the quantity and quality of water draining
from agricultural systems. Riparian buﬀers of
non-crop vegetation are widely recommended as
a tool for removing non-point source pollutants,
particularly nutrients (nitrates, phosphorus,
potassium) from agricultural areas, especially
those carried by surface run-oﬀ (Lee et al. 2003;
Brüsch and Nilsson 1993; Daniel and Gilliam
1996; Glandon et al. 1981; Nakamura et al. 2001).
In ﬁeld studies, even buﬀers of switchgrass along
ﬁelds removed 95% of the sediment, 80% of the
total nitrogen (N), 62% of the nitrate nitrogen
(NO3-N), 78% of the total phosphorus (P), and
58% of the phosphate phosphorus (PO4-P). If the
buﬀer included woody species, it removed 97%
of the sediment, 94% of the total N, 85% of the
NO3-N, 91% of the total P, and 80% of the PO4-P
in the run-oﬀ (Lee et al. 2003).
Nutrient run-oﬀ from agricultural sources into
waterways has been blamed for the production of
hypoxia, popularly termed (aquatic) “dead zones”
(Diaz 2001). These destroy local ﬁsheries in many
coastal areas, which communities rely on for the
intake of protein and other nutrients. Dead zones
have now been reported in more than 400 systems,
affecting a total area of more than 245 000
square kilometres (Diaz and Rosenburg 2008;
see Figure 1). These are concentrated along the
eastern seaboard of North America, and European
and Japanese coastlines, where human ecological
footprints and agriculture intensities are highest
(Diaz and Rosenburg 2008, see Figure 1).
Agricultural practice and its demand for water
have reduced both the amount and quality of
drinking water available for human consumption.
At the same time, lack of irrigation in many lowincome countries is a leading cause of poor crop
production and yield gaps (Lobell et al. 2009). By
2002, irrigated agricultural land comprised less
than one ﬁfth of all cropped area but produced
40–45% of the world’s food (Döll and Siebert

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

2002). Integrated water management practices
that maintain and use biodiversity to support
ecosystem services that improve water use
eﬃciency and water quality will be needed to

reduce the negative impacts of current water use
practices on human health and contribute to its
improvement.

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Eutrophication-associated dead zones, 2008

Hypoxic system
Human footprint
0- 1
1 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 60
60 - 80
80 - 100

Global distribution of over 400 systems that have scienti cally reported accounts of being eutrophication-associated dead zones.
Source: Diaz and Rosenberg 2008

Box 2. Case study: Water consumption and cotton production
Cotton is a particularly important global crop and the most important natural bre used in textile
industries worldwide, accounting for 40% of textile production, but it is also a major consumer of
water: over half of all cotton production is dependent on heavy irrigation (Soth et al 1999; Chapagain
2006). In the period 1960–2000, an environmental disaster unfolded as the Aral Sea in Central
Asia lost approximately 60% of its area and 80% of its volume (Glantz 1998; Pereira et al. 2002)
as a result of the annual withdrawal of water from its main feeder rivers, the Amu Darya and the Syr
Darya, for cotton agriculture in the desert (Cosgrove and Rijsberman 2014). This depletion of water
a ected local sheries and livelihoods (Micklin 2007), as well as water quality both from harvesting
and processing (Bednar et al. 2002; Chapagain et al. 2006). As cotton is a global commodity, its
consumption takes place in areas remote from its growth. One study concluded that about 84% of
the “water footprint” of cotton consumption in Europe is located outside the continent, with “major
impacts in India and Uzbekistan” (Chapagain et al. 2006). E orts to improve the production of cotton
have focused on the development of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton, which reduces
insecticide use (Cattaneo et al. 2006), as well as improvements in water e ciency through drip
irrigation furrow, and other e orts to reduce the negative environmental and human health impacts.
Despite these e orts, cotton production, itself a source of agricultural biodiversity reduction, remains
a major consumer of global freshwater with a pronounced impact on freshwater biodiversity.
* Whereas the term “ecological footprint” denotes the area (ha) needed to sustain a population, the “water footprint” represents the water volume (cubic metres per year) required, including dilution water necessary to restore polluted water to
internationally agreed water quality standards.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

55

5. Waterborne and water-related
diseases

of them among young children (Prüss-Üstün et al.
2008; WHO 2003a).¹²

Long before the advent of modern medical care,
industrialized countries decreased their levels of waterrelated disease through good water management.
Yet, even in these countries, outbreaks of waterborne
disease continue to occur, sometimes with lethal
consequences. In developing countries, water-related
disease blights the lives of the poor. Gro Harlem
Brundtland, former WHO Director-General, 2001.

Factors that have been found to increase the
incidence of waterborne diseases include
urbanization and high population densities
of people, agriculture and industry (Patz et al.
2004). Habitat destruction or modiﬁcation also
plays a major role. For example, dam-related
reservoir construction increases the prevalence
and intensity of human schistosomiasis in Africa
(e.g. N’Goran et al. 1997; Zakhary 1997) and
elsewhere (Myers and Patz 2009), as described in
Box 3. Climate change and the spread of aquatic
invasive species (see section 5.1) may facilitate
transmission of human pathogens (such as the
Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus) and can
transmit viruses such as dengue, LaCrosse, West
Nile and chikungunya (Benedict and Levine 2007).

Surface freshwaters are among the most altered
ecosystems on the planet and, coupled with
associated biodiversity loss, have been linked
to increased incidence of infectious diseases,
including waterborne illnesses (Carpenter et al.
2011; see also the chapter on infectious diseases
in this volume for a detailed discussion). Although
the global disease burden of many formerly
devastating waterborne illnesses (e.g. cholera,
typhoid fever) has declined considerably, others
continue to aﬀect a signiﬁcant proportion of the
global population, especially in the world’s lowestincome regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where
the highest concentration of poverty occurs (Hotez
and Kamath 2009).
The presence of pathogenic (disease-causing)
microorganisms in freshwater can lead to the
transmission of waterborne diseases,¹⁰ many of
which cause diarrhoeal illness, a leading cause of
mortality in children under 5 years of age, and
among the most prevalent waterborne illnesses,
particularly in low- and middle-income countries
(Prüss-Ustün et al. 2014; WHO 2013; WHO and
UNICEF 2012; UNESCO 2009; Prüss-Üstün and
Corvalán 2006).¹¹ Unsafe drinking water itself
accounts for 88% of diarrhoeal disease worldwide
(including cholera, typhoid and dysentery) and
results in 1.5 million deaths each year, the majority

A strong relationship between the human
development index (HDI), access to drinking
water services and sanitation with mortality by
diarrhoea was found in some parts of the world,
particularly low-income countries. Almost half
of the population in these countries is at risk
of exposure to waterborne diseases, including
gastroenteric diseases such as dysentery,
giardiasis, hepatitis A, rotavirus, typhoid fever and
cholera. Less economically developed countries
such as Haiti, for example, had the lowest water
and sanitation coverage levels, coupled with the
lowest HDI values and highest child mortality
rates, in contrast to Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba and
Uruguay, among others, which had higher values
and coverage (PAHO 2012).
Human alteration of hydrological regimes has
often been motivated by concerns for human
health and well-being (Myers et al. 2013). While
altered waterways (e.g. dams, irrigation canals,
urban drainage systems) have indeed provided

¹⁰ The contamination of surface waters with fecal material from humans, livestock or wildlife has been identiﬁed as an
important (albeit not exclusive) pathway for the transmission of waterborne diseases (Prüss-Üstün and Corvalán 2006;
US EPA 2003; Ragosta 2010).
¹¹ See also http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/; http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/wash_diseases.html
¹² Children under 5 years of age living in poor dwellings with inadequate access to health services are the most susceptible
to diarrhoeal disease and account for the overwhelming majority of all deaths attributed to these diseases (WHO 2004).
Relatively little is known about the pathogens that account for diarrhoeal disease themselves (Yongsi 2010).

56

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

valuable beneﬁts to human communities (e.g.
energy, employment, access to food), they are
costly to build and maintain, have frequently
been accompanied by unintended consequences to
ecosystems¹³ and have had negative repercussions
on public health, in some cases considerably
increasing the availability of habitats for disease
organisms and their vectors (de Moor 1994)
and exacerbating waterborne disease outbreaks
(Dudgeon et al. 2006; Hotez and Kamath 2009;
Myers et al. 2014).
It has been estimated that some 2.3 billion people
suﬀer from diseases related to water, and diseases
transmitted by freshwater organisms kill an
estimated 5 million people per year. Unsustainably
managed ecosystems, such as wetlands, may
harbour waterborne and vector-borne pathogens
such as plasmodium and human schistosoma; the
latter is described in Box 3 (Horwitz et al. 2012;
Dale and Connelly 2012; Dale and Knight 2008;
Fenwick 2006).
The habitat degradation that often accompanies
human development activities, and corresponding
simpliﬁcation of natural species assemblages, have
been found to foster the proliferation of disease
vectors. The maintenance of natural freshwater
communities and ecosystem integrity, where
possible, may correspondingly contribute to a
reduction in conditions for the transmission of
diseases, including those related to water (Dudgeon
et al. 2006). The development of dams and
irrigation projects, for example, can contribute to
expanding habitats for mosquitoes, aquatic snails
and ﬂies, which can spread disease among resettled
agricultural populations. River damming changes
physical and chemical conditions, altering the
original biodiversity (Tundisi et al. 2002). Reduced
water current creates favourable conditions for
molluscs from the genus Biomphalaria, potential

vectors of schistosomiasis. This disease aﬀects
over 200 million people worldwide, of which 88
million are under 15 years of age, with the heaviest
infections being reported in the 10–14 years’
age group in Africa and South America (UNEP,
UNICEF & WHO 2002).
Other species, such as aquatic plants, are also
aﬀected by shifting environmental conditions,
which in turn may favour mosquito breeding,
including mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles,
potential vectors of a protozoan – genus
Plasmodium – causing malaria (Thiengo et al.
2005). Many studies have reported the increase
in malaria cases after the construction of large
dams. From the Chiapas hydroelectric power
plant in Mexico to Itaipu Binacional in Brazil/
Paraguay, thousands of malaria cases were linked
to dam construction (Couto 1996). In South
America, almost 60% of all reservoirs were built
since the 1980s. Prevalence of other diseases
may also increase with river damming. In the
area of inﬂuence of the Yacyreta dam (Paraná
River, Argentina/Paraguay), Culicoides paraensis
mosquitoes were found (Ronderos et al. 2003).
These are known vectors of Oropouche fever –
which registered epidemics in many urban centres
in the Pará State of Brazil (Barros 1990).
Biological and chemical threats (e.g. agricultural
run-off, pharmaceuticals) to water resources,
as well as the development of water-related
infrastructure and urbanization, have also had
their share of detrimental impacts on both
biodiversity and human health by diminishing
native biodiversity and sometimes increasing the
potential for waterborne illnesses.
The global community has widely acknowledged
the importance of access to clean water, sanitation
and hygiene as critical development interventions

¹³ Human activities can hamper the ecological balance of wetlands and thereby alter existing disease dynamics or introduce
novel disease problems (Horwitz et al. 2012). For example, ﬂood risk may also increase as a result of degradation of coastal
wetlands, demonstrated with Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans, and extant deforestation exacerbated the health
impact of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

57

in several goals and targets of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs).¹⁴ It was estimated
that over one sixth¹⁵ of the world’s population
did not have access to safe water at the time
the MDGs¹⁶ were adopted (Prüss-Üstün et al.
2004). While considerable progress had been
achieved by 2010,¹⁷ much work is still needed to
meet global targets, particularly in low-income
regions, including sub-Saharan Africa (WHO
and UNICEF 2012). Subjacent to the fulﬁlment
of these objectives is the need to sustainably
manage the ecosystems that provide the critical

life-supporting services that sustain our water
(and other) resources.
The provision of clean water and sanitation to the
world’s poor, who are particularly vulnerable and
ill-equipped to cope with further loss of ecosystem
services, garners health beneﬁts. The sustainable
management of resources can also alleviate pressures caused by the unsustainable use of wetland
and other ecosystems, reducing waste ﬂows while
also improving the overall quality of fresh and
coastal waters essential to health and well-being.

Box 3. Ecosystem disturbance and waterborne disease: the case of schistosomiasis
While ecosystems can act as disease reservoirs, there is abundant scienti c literature to support
the claim that these cannot be viewed in isolation from the human activity that alters them.
Schistosomiasis is a waterborne disease that a ects some 200 million people worldwide. It can
cause grave damage to internal tissues, including the liver, intestines and bladder, and has been
found to undermine growth and development in children.
While schistosomiasis has been closely related to ecosystem disruption and the unsustainable use of
biological resources, it is also sustained in a setting of poverty. A systematic review of schistosomiasis
and water resource development carried out by Steinmann et al. (2006) estimated that among
200 million infected, an estimated 93% (192 million cases) occur in sub-Saharan Africa, including
29 million in Nigeria, 19 million in the United Republic of Tanzania, and 15 million each in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ghana. Approximately 76% of the population in sub-Saharan
Africa lives near rivers, lakes and other contaminated water bodies.
Schistosomiasis is caused by parasitic worms (Schisotoma spp.), which spend a portion of their lifecycle in some species of freshwater snails that act as intermediate hosts for the disease. People
become infected with the parasitic worms when they enter contaminated waters and the parasitic
worms leave their host to penetrate human skin, thus infecting the subject. In Lake Malawi, it was
found that over shing caused an increase in abundance of Bulinus nyassanus, a snail species that
acts as the intermediate host of the schistosome parasite.

¹⁴ See MDG 7 (Ensure environmental sustainability) Targets 9, 10, 11; MDG 4 (Reduce child mortality) Target 5; MDG 6
(Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases) Target 8.
¹⁵ It is estimated that 1.1 billion people did not have access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion lacked access to improved
sanitation when these goals and targets were ﬁrst adopted.
¹⁶ When the MDGs were ﬁrst adopted, approximately 3.1% of annual deaths (1.7 million) and 3.7% of the annual health
burden of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide (54.2 million) were attributed to unsafe water, sanitation and
hygiene, all of them in low-income countries and 90% of them in children (WHO 2003). Major enteric pathogens in aﬀected
children include: rotavirus, Campylobacter jejuni, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, Shigella spp. and Vibrio cholerae O1, and
potentially enteropathogenic E. coli, Aeromonas spp., V. cholerae 0139, enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis, Clostridium diﬃcile
and Cryptosporidium parvum (Ashbolt 2004; WHO 2003a).
¹⁷ By 2010, some 884 million people still did not use improved sources of drinking water (WHO 2010a). Additionally, 2.6 billion
people did not use improved sanitation.

58

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

In Cameroon, schistosomiasis has been associated with an increase in deforestation. The increase in
the amount of sunlight penetration, altered water rates and ow levels, and increase in vegetation
growth caused by deforestation altered the ecology of freshwater snail populations in the area.
Bulinus truncatus, a competent host for the parasitic worm Schistosoma haematobium (responsible for
an estimated two thirds of all schistosoma infections in sub-Saharan Africa and an important cause of
severe urinary tract disease), displaced another type of freshwater snail, Bulinus forskalii, which itself
hosted a non-pathogenic schistosome but was less able to thrive in cleared habitat.
In Kenya, the prevalence of urinary schistosomiasis in children rose to a staggering 70% ten years
after the start of the Hola irrigation project (prevalence was 0% prior to the start of the project). The
irrigation project led to the introduction of a new snail vector well suited to the altered environment.
The prevalence of schistosomiasis further increased to 90% by 1982. (Malaria is another disease that
has been closely associated with the construction of dams and irrigation projects.)
In the Nile Delta of Egypt, dam construction in 1965 also led to an increase in schistosomiasis by
increasing the habitat for Bulinus truncates, leading to an increase of almost 20% in the 1980s from
6% prior to dam construction. The increase in disease prevalence was even greater in other parts of
the country.
Sources: Myers and Patz 2009 (and references therein); Evers 2006; Molyneux et al. 2008; Steinmann et al. 2006; Hotez and
Kamath 2009.

5.1 Aquatic invasive alien species
Invasive alien species (IAS) are a major threat to
biodiversity (Simberloﬀ et al. 2005; McGeoch et
al. 2010). Aquatic invasive species are among the
most pernicious, often travelling across the globe
before introduction. While some introductions are
purposeful, such as the introduction of the Nile
perch (Lates niloticus) to Lake Victoria, which has
caused disastrous and irreparable harm, many
others are incidental. The perch was introduced
for commercial reasons, and it proceeded to
dominate the lake and led to the extinction of
up to 200 species of endemic haplochromine
cichlids (Goldschmidt et al. 1993). Recent
evidence suggests that there has been some
recovery of aquatic biodiversity in the area, and

that eutrophication also played a role in the mass
extinction event recorded by observers in Lake
Victoria, and that the Nile perch is now on the
decline (Stearns and Stearns 2010; Goudswaard
et al. 2008). While the introduction of alien
species may sometimes be beneﬁcial, the case of
the Nile perch remains a very good example of
how irreparable harm can be done to a complex
ecosystem and why commercial introductions
should be viewed with the utmost caution for
potential consequences.¹⁸
In contrast, many aquatic invasives have arrived
after surreptitiously travelling on cargo ships and
oil tankers, which use ballast water to balance
their hulls.¹⁹ The zebra mussel worked its way
into the North American Great Lakes via Russia

¹⁸ Invasive species Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker 1857), Mytilidae, is considered as a major problem for hydroelectrical power
plants because of their high growth rates, which obstruct the pipes. However, their ﬁltering rates are among the highest for
suspension-feeding bivalves, reaching as high as 125–350 ml individual–1 h–1. The high ﬁltration rates, associated with the
high densities of this mollusc (up to over 200 000 ind m–2) in the Paraná watershed – where there are many dams, including
Itaipu Binacional, one of the largest in the world – suggest that its environmental impact may be swiftly changing ecological
conditions in the areas colonized, which include four countries, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina (Sylvester et al. 2005).
¹⁹ Other means of accidental introduction include pet, aquaculture and aquarium releases or escapes, seaway canals, and even
irresponsible research activities.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

59

in 1986, while the comb jelly went in the opposite
direction, from the United States (US) to the
Caspian Sea, with devastating impacts on ﬁsheries
there (Chivian and Bernstein 2008: 49). The zebra
mussel has had a complex impact on the water
quality of the Great Lakes. While these bivalves can
give lake water a clearer appearance as they ﬁlter
various particles, including some forms of algae,
they also consume phytoplankton (the building
block of the marine food system), and they give
harmful blue–green algae a competitive advantage,
contributing to new dead zone growth.²⁰ Ricciardi
(2006) estimated that one new species had been
discovered in the North American Great Lakes
every 28 weeks during the 1990s; while Cohen
and Carlton (1998) found even higher rates
of introduction in the San Francisco Bay area.
International eﬀorts to prevent ballast waterrelated introductions, through the International
Maritime Organization and others, are having
some impact, but this remains a serious focus of
concern. Plants can be aquatic invasive species
as well: witness the water hyacinth, Eichhornia
crassipes, which spreads over lake surfaces, choking
local vegetation and reducing oxygen availability;
it is a major hindrance in Africa in particular,
though it does appear to have some natural limits
to its cyclical spread (Albright et al. 2004).²¹
Climate change will further exacerbate the problem
of aquatic invasive species as temperatures
increase and the range of invasive species, such
as zebra mussels and Asian carp, are extended.
Another example is the European green crab,
harmful to native species in the US and parts of
Africa and Australia; it has been slow to spread
northward because of colder water temperatures,
but this is slowly changing with global warming
(Floyd and Williams 2004). In some cases, climate
change will join invasive species as major stressors

on struggling native species populations, further
reinforcing the spread of aquatic IAS through
common vectors such as ship traﬃc and tourism.²²
For example, melting sea ice opens new vectors for
bioinvasion in the Arctic (and indeed, melting ice
itself can release previously unknown pathogens,
locked into ice formations for thousands of years,
into the Arctic environment). Increasing levels of
photo-degraded microplastic can also serve as a
vector for microbial communities (Zettler et al.
2013).
While the impact of IAS on biodiversity and
ecosystems is well documented (e.g. Charles
2007), resultant impacts on human health are
an important area for further research (see Pysek
and Richardson 2010). Deleterious waterborne
pathogens, such as those that cause cholera, are
often classiﬁed as invasive species (see the chapter
on infectious diseases in this volume). Other
aquatic invasive species, such as the zebra mussel
described above, not only disrupt local food
security networks but can also act as causative
agents of harmful algal blooms (Hallegraeﬀ 1998;
Coetzee and Hill 2012), threaten the availability
of clean water supplies, and pose other signiﬁcant
health threats (McNeely 2001). Invasive bivalves
can clog machinery vital for the operation of
energy plants and well as ﬁshing boat equipment.
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crossipes) can make
small-scale freshwater ﬁshing next to impossible,
directly lowering food security and nutrition levels
for local communities. Moreover, its introduction
in Lake Victoria has also been found to contribute
to the spread of waterborne diseases (Pejchar and
Mooney 2009 and reference therein). Eﬀorts to
eradicate aquatic IAS can also carry health hazards
if they employ lampricides and other agents that
can contaminate water supplies (though sea
lamprey eradication eﬀorts in North America

²⁰ See http://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/default.asp?lang=En&n=832CDC7B&xsl=articlesservices,viewfull&po=0E367B85. The
relationship with climate change is also complex: warmer temperatures will extend the range northward; and zebra mussels
release carbon dioxide into the aquatic environment.
²¹ For a recent discussion on the impact of water hyacinth in South Africa, see for example Coetzee et al. (2014), and for a
discussion on the role of eutrophication in its biological control, see Coetzee and Hill (2012).
²² As a major EPA report suggested in 2008, in order “to eﬀectively prevent invasions that might result from or be inﬂuenced
by climate-change factors, a ﬁrst step should be to identify speciﬁc aquatic invasive species threats, including new pathways
and vectors, which may result as environmental conditions such as water and air temperatures, precipitation patterns, or
sea levels change” (EPA 2008:61).

60

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

have been relatively successful with limited
controversy). Moreover, the losses posed by IAS
can be harmful to the well-being of communities
whose sense of place may be disrupted in areas
aﬀected by IAS (McNeely 2001). It is vital that
eﬀorts are made to avoid introductions whenever
possible, and to employ the precautionary
principle when contemplating future purposeful
introductions.

6. Ways forward and additional
considerations
It is clear that healthy freshwater systems
are central to the protection of biodiversity
as well as to the promotion of human health
and well-being. It is also evident that there are
severe threats to water security and ecosystem
health; and that waterborne diseases, the loss
of aquatic biodiversity, and the disruption of
complex ecosystems represent major public
health challenges. A concerted eﬀort to conserve
freshwater resources is necessary on a global
scale. While this chapter has focused primarily
on freshwater systems, it is equally apparent
that oceans and related biodiversity face threats
from pollution, climate change, coral bleaching,
acidiﬁcation and other anthropocentric factors,
and that an international eﬀort to conserve them
is vital (Stoett 2012:107–28). These impacts
extend to human health, an area that clearly
merits greater scientiﬁc attention. The European
Marine Board recently published a position paper
to this eﬀect on “Linking oceans and human
health: a strategic research priority for Europe”,²³
which highlights the substantive and complex
interactions between the marine environment
and human health and well-being (Flemming et
al. 2014).
Moreover, we are only beginning to understand
the impact climate change will have on aquatic
ecosystems and human health (see the chapter
on climate change in this volume). In a recent
background report written for the European
Environmental Agency, the European Topic Centre

on Water concluded that climate change would
have multiple impacts, including:

•

physical changes such as increased water
temperature, reduced river and lake ice cover,
more stable vertical stratiﬁcation and less mixing
of water of deep-water lakes, and changes in water
discharge, aﬀecting water level and retention time;

• chemical changes, such as increased nutrient
concentrations and water colour, and decreased
oxygen content (DOC);
•

biological changes, including northwards
migration of species and alteration of habitats,
affecting the structure and functioning of
freshwater ecosystems (European Topic Centre
on Water 2010: 5)
It is clear that all of these changes will aﬀect human
security in terms of our physical and emotional
connections with water, and the ecosystem
services provided by aquatic ecosystems. We will
need to adapt to them, but we can also be more
proactive by promoting biodiversity conservation
and restoration.
Water resources will remain central to human
and community development. The biodiversity–
health nexus is readily apparent in this context.
However, much remains to be done regarding the
management and equitable use of water resources,
including preventive measures to avoid increased
waterborne disease and aquatic invasive species.
The WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality
establish a basis for the pursuit of a healthier
human species (WHO 2010b). Recognition of
the key role played by biodiversity in freshwater
systems is an important element in that pursuit
as well. Recent laboratory research suggests that
there is a positive correlation between species
diversity and the ability of water systems to ﬁlter
nutrient pollutants such as nitrate (Cardinale
2011) as well as pharmaceuticals (Binellia et
al. 2014). More than ever, the biodiversity and
global public health communities, including key
decision-makers and private sector actors, need
to work together towards a healthier blue planet.

²³ http://www.marineboard.eu/images/publications/Oceans%20and%20Human%20Health-214.pdf

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

61

Some meaningful (but by no means exhaustive)
considerations include the following:
We must take stock of our ecological capital in
ways that will beneﬁt human health. Water and
other ecosystem services must be linked to broader
frameworks that consider public health concerns
within broader ecosystem restoration and
conservation frameworks, such as the ecosystem
or One Health approach. Knowledge exchange and
cross-sectoral collaboration will be critical to share
and mutually learn from experiences.
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is a critical
instrument in the pursuit of water security. As of
early 2015, 2186 sites, encompassing 208 449 277
hectares of surface area, have been classiﬁed as
wetlands of international importance. The Ramsar
Convention, in force since 1975, advocates the
“wise use” of wetlands, deﬁned as “the maintenance
of their ecological character, achieved through the
implementation of ecosystem approaches, within
the context of sustainable development”.²⁴
The pollution of freshwater lakes and the oceans
must be halted to protect their indigenous
biodiversity. Micro-plastics are a particularly
pernicious pollutant, harming wildlife as they
enter the food chain and providing vectors for
invasive species. International eﬀorts to stop the
pollution and clean oceans, lakes and rivers will
be pivotal in the near future if we are to avoid
the further development of what scientists have
referred to as the “plastisphere” (Zettler et al.
2013).
The impact of climate change on water biodiversity
must be closely monitored and eﬀorts to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions should receive
extra attention, given the centrality of water
biodiversity to human health. This calls for more
scientiﬁc research, including taxonomic studies
focusing on the use of bioindicators to assess
ecosystem condition (Buss et al. 2015), and more
studies linking the impacts of biodiversity loss on
human health, as well as serious regulatory policy
development.
The impact of water quality and quantity on
human health is one of several critical areas
described in this volume, which underscores the
need to develop robust, cross-sectoral integrated
approaches, such as the ecosystem or One Health
approach to water management and to the
broader management of ecosystems (including
agroecosystems). Researchers, policy-makers and
those that manage natural resources must also
work to compile and share regionally speciﬁc data
on how functional metrics vary over space and
time (Palmer and Febria 2012) and produce a more
composite idea of related water footprints (see
Box 2 on cotton production). Applying a holistic
framework to water and food security, and other
critical themes at the biodiversity–health nexus,
makes it possible to manage ecosystems (including
water and agroecosystems) that are more resilient,
sustainable and productive, that remain productive
in the long term, and that yield a wide range of
ecosystem services. A socioecological perspective
will further ensure that vulnerable populations
most aﬀected by the global disease burden and
ecosystem degradation are also considered. These
considerations will be imperative as we move from
the MDGs toward the Sustainable Development
Goals and the post-2015 Development Agenda.

²⁴ http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/ramsar/1_4000_0

62

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

UNDP BANGLADESH / FLICKR

4. Biodiversity, air quality and
human health
1. Introduction
Air pollution is a signiﬁcant problem in cities
across the world. It aﬀects human health and
well-being, ecosystem health, crops, climate,
visibility and human-made materials. Health
effects related to air pollution include its
impact on the pulmonary, cardiac, vascular and
neurological systems (Section 2). Trees aﬀect air
quality through a number of means (Section 3)
and can be used to improve air quality (Section
4). However, air pollution also aﬀects tree health
and plant diversity (Section 5). Bioindicators can
be useful for monitoring air quality and indicating
environmental health (Section 6). Understanding
the impacts of vegetation biodiversity on air
quality and air quality on vegetation biodiversity
is essential to sustaining healthy and diverse
ecosystems, and for improving air quality and
consequently human health and well-being.

$LUSROOXWLRQDQGLWVHƨHFWVRQ
human health
Air pollution can signiﬁcantly aﬀect human and
ecosystem health (US EPA 2010). Recent research
indicates that global deaths directly or indirectly
attributable to outdoor air pollution reached 7

million in 2012 (WHO 2014¹). This was equivalent
to 1 in every 8 deaths globally, making air pollution
the most important environmental health risk
worldwide (WHO 2014a). Other diseases aﬀected
by air pollution include cardiovascular disease,
immune disorders, various cancers, and disorders
of the eye, ear, nose and throat such as cataract and
sinusitis. Epidemiological evidence suggests that
prenatal exposure to certain forms of air pollution
can harm the child, aﬀecting birth outcomes and
infant mortality. Childhood exposure to some
pollutants also appears to increase the risk of
developing health problems in later life, aﬀecting
the development of lung function and increasing
the risk for development of chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.
Several respiratory illnesses caused or otherwise
aﬀected by air pollution are on the rise. These
include bronchial asthma, which aﬀects between
100 and 150 million people worldwide, with
another 65 million aﬀected by some form of
COPD. Other human health problems from air
pollution include: aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function,
increased frequency and severity of respiratory
symptoms (e.g. difficulty in breathing and
coughing, increased susceptibility to respiratory

¹ World Health Organization, 2015. Health and the Environment: Addressing the health impact of air pollution. Sixty-eighth
World Health Assembly, Agenda item 14.6. A68/A/CONF./2 Rev.1 26 May 2015. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_ﬁles/
WHA68/A68_ACONF2Rev1-en.pdf (last accessed June 2015)

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

63

infections), eﬀects on the nervous system (e.g.
impacts on learning, memory and behaviour),
cancer and premature death (e.g. Pope et al.
2002). People with pre-existing conditions (e.g.
heart disease, asthma, emphysema), diabetes, and
older adults and children are at greater risk for
air pollution-related health eﬀects. In the United
States (US), approximately 130 000 particulate
matter (PM)2.5-related deaths and 4700 ozone
(O3)-related deaths in 2005 were attributed to air
pollution (Fann et al. 2012).
Air pollution comes from numerous sources.
Major causes of gaseous and particulate outdoor
air pollution with a direct impact on public health
include the combustion of fossil fuels associated
with transport, heating and electricity generation,
and industrial processes such as smelting,
concrete manufacture and oil reﬁning. Other
important sources include ecosystem degradation
(including deforestation and wetland drainage)
and desertiﬁcation.
Plants provide an important ecosystem service
through the regulation of air quality. Although
the eﬀects of plants on air quality are generally
positive, they can also to some degree be negative
(as discussed in section 3 below). Likewise, air
quality can have both positive and negative
impacts on plant populations. These various
impacts are partially dependent upon the diversity
of the plant species, vegetation assemblages and
size classes. This chapter explores the role of
biodiversity in regulating air quality in positive
and negative terms, including a discussion of
current knowledge gaps and recommendations.
Air pollution also aﬀects the environment. Ozone
and other pollutants can damage plants and trees,
and pollution can lead to acid rain. Acid rain can
harm vegetation by damaging tree leaves and
stressing trees through changing the chemical
and physical composition of the soil. Particles
in the atmosphere can also reduce visibility. The
typical visual range in the eastern US parks is
15–25 miles, approximately one third of what it
would be without human-induced air pollution.
In western USA, the visual range has decreased
from 140 miles to 35–90 miles (US EPA 2014). Air

64

pollution also aﬀects the earth’s climate by either
absorbing or reﬂecting energy, which can lead to
climate warming or cooling, respectively.
Indoor air pollution is primarily associated with
particulates from combustion of solid fuel (wood,
coal, turf, dung, crop waste, etc.) and oil for heating
and cooking, and gases from all fuels (including
natural gas) in buildings with inadequate
ventilation or smoke removal. The World Health
Organization (WHO) reports that over 4 million
people die prematurely from illness attributable to
household air pollution from cooking with solid
fuels. More than 50% of premature deaths among
children under 5 years of age are due to pneumonia
caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from
household air pollution. It is estimated that
3.8 million premature deaths annually from
noncommunicable diseases (including stroke,
ischaemic heart disease, lung cancer and COPD)
are attributable to exposure to household air
pollution (WHO 2014b).
Some pollutants, both gaseous and particulate, are
directly emitted into the atmosphere and include
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Other
pollutants are not directly emitted; rather, they are
formed through chemical reactions. For example,
ground-level O3 is often formed when emissions
of NOx and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight.
Some particles are also formed from other directly
emitted pollutants.

3. Impacts of vegetation on air
quality
There are three main ways in which plants aﬀect
local air pollution levels: via effects on local
microclimate and energy use, removal of air
pollution, and emission of chemicals. Each of
these are described below.

(ƨHFWVRISODQWVRQORFDO
microclimate and energy use
Increased air temperature can lead to increased
energy demand (and related emissions) in the

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

summer (e.g. to cool buildings), increased air
pollution and heat-related illness. Vegetation,
particularly trees, alters microclimates and
cools the air through evaporation from tree
transpiration, blocking winds and shading various
surfaces. Local environmental inﬂuences on air
temperature include the amount of tree cover,
amount of impervious surfaces in the area, time
of day, thermal stability, antecedent moisture
condition and topography (Heisler et al. 2007).
Vegetated areas can cool the surroundings by
several degrees Celsius, with higher tree and shrub
cover resulting in cooler air temperatures (Chang
et al. 2007). Trees can also have a signiﬁcant
impact on wind speed, with measured reductions
in wind speed in high-canopy residential areas
(77% tree cover) of the order of 65–75% (Heisler
1990).
2Temperature reduction and changes in wind
speed in urban areas can have signiﬁcant eﬀects
on air pollution. Lower air temperatures can lead
to lower emission of pollutants, as pollutant
emissions are often related to air temperatures
(e.g. evaporation of VOCs). In addition, reduced
urban air temperatures and shading of buildings
can reduce the amount of energy used to cool
buildings in the summer time, as buildings are
cooler and air conditioning is used less. However,
shading of buildings in winter can lead to increased
building energy use (e.g. Heisler 1986).² In addition
to temperature eﬀects, trees aﬀect wind speed and
mixing of pollutants in the atmosphere, which in
turn aﬀect local pollutant concentrations. These
changes in wind speed can lead to both positive
and negative eﬀects related to air pollution. On
the positive side, reduced wind speed due to
shelter from trees and forests will tend to reduce

winter-time heating energy demand by tending
to reduce cold air inﬁltration into buildings. On
the negative side, reductions in wind speed can
reduce the dispersion of pollutants, which will
tend to increase local pollutant concentrations. In
addition, with lower wind speeds, the height of the
atmosphere within which the pollution mixes can
be reduced. This reduction in the “mixing height”
tends to increase pollutant concentrations, as the
same amount of pollution is now mixed within a
smaller volume of air.

2) Removal of air pollutants
Trees remove gaseous air pollution primarily by
uptake through the leaves, though some gases
are removed by the plant surface. For O3, SO2
and NO2, most of the pollution is removed via
leaf stomata.³ Healthy trees in cities can remove
signiﬁcant amounts of air pollution. The amount
of pollution removed is directly related to the
amount of air pollution in the atmosphere (if
there is no air pollution, the trees will remove no
air pollution). Areas with a high proportion of
vegetation cover will remove more pollution and
have the potential to eﬀect greater reductions in
air pollution concentrations in and around these
areas. However, pollution concentration can be
increased under certain conditions (see Section 4).
Pollution removal rates by vegetation diﬀer among
regions according to the amount of vegetative
cover and leaf area, the amount of air pollution,
length of in-leaf season, precipitation and other
meteorological variables.
There are numerous studies that link air quality
to the eﬀects on human health. With relation
to trees, most studies have investigated the

² This altered energy use consequently leads to altered pollutant emissions from power plants used to produce the energy
used to cool or heat buildings. Air temperatures reduced by trees can not only lead to reduced emission of air pollutants
from numerous sources (e.g. cars, power plants), but can also lead to reduced formation of O3 ,as O3 formation tends to
increase with increasing air temperatures.
³ Trees also directly aﬀect particulate matter in the atmosphere by intercepting particles, emitting particles (e.g. pollen) and
resuspending particles captured on the plant surface. Some particles can be absorbed into the tree, though most intercepted
particles are retained on the plant surface. Many of the particles that are intercepted are eventually resuspended back to the
atmosphere, washed oﬀ by rain, or dropped to the ground with leaf and twig fall. During dry periods, particles are constantly
intercepted and resuspended, in part, dependent upon wind speed. During precipitation, particles can be washed oﬀ and
either dissolved or transferred to the soil. Consequently, vegetation is only a temporary retention site for many atmospheric
particles, though the removal of gaseous pollutants is more permanent as the gases are often absorbed and transformed
within the leaf interior.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

65

magnitude of the eﬀect of trees on pollution
removal or concentrations, while only a limited
number of studies have looked at the estimated
health eﬀects of pollution removal by trees. In
the United Kingdom, woodlands are estimated
to save between 5 and 7 deaths, and between 4
and 6 hospital admissions per year due to reduced
pollution by SO2 and particulate matter less
than 10 microns (PM10) (Powe and Willis 2004).
Modelling for London estimates that 25% tree
cover removes 90.4 metric tons of PM10 pollution
per year, which equates to a reduction of 2 deaths
and 2 hospital stays per year (Tiwary et al. 2009).
Nowak et al. (2013) reported that the total amount
of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)
removed annually by trees in 10 US cities in 2010
varied from 4.7 t in Syracuse to 64.5 t in Atlanta.
Estimates of the annual monetary value of human
health effects associated with PM2.5 removal
in these same cities (e.g. changes in mortality,
hospital admissions, respiratory symptoms)
ranged from $1.1 million in Syracuse to $60.1
million in New York City. Mortality avoided was
typically around 1 person per year per city, but was
as high as 7.6 people per year in New York City.
Trees and forests in the conterminous US
removed 22.4 million t of air pollution in 2010
(range: 11.1–31.0 million t), with human health
eﬀects valued at US$ 8.5 billion (range: $2.2–
15.6 billion). Most of the pollution removal
occurred in rural areas, while most of the health
impacts and values were within urban areas.
Health impacts included the avoidance of more
than 850 incidences of human mortality. Other
substantial health beneﬁts included the reduction
of more than 670 000 incidences of acute
respiratory symptoms (range: 221 000–1 035
000), 430 000 incidences of asthma exacerbation
(range: 198 000–688 000) and 200 000 days of
school loss (range: 78 000–266 000) (Nowak et
al. 2014).
Though the amount of air pollution removed by
trees may be substantial, the per cent air quality
improvement in an area will depend upon on
the amount of vegetation and meteorological
conditions. Air quality improvement by trees
in cities during daytime of the in-leaf season

66

averages around 0.51% for particulate matter,
0.45% for O3, 0.44% for SO2, 0.33% for NO2, and
0.002% for CO. However, in areas with 100%
tree cover (i.e. contiguous forest stands), air
pollution improvement is on an average around
four times higher than city averages, with shortterm improvements in air quality (1 hour) as
high as 16% for O3 and SO2, 13% for particulate
matter, 8% for NO2, and 0.05% for CO (Nowak et
al. 2006).

3) Emission of chemicals
Vegetation, including trees, can emit various
chemicals that can contribute to air pollution.
Because some vegetation, particularly urban
vegetation, often requires relatively large inputs
of energy for maintenance activities, the resulting
emissions need to be considered. The use and
combustion of fossil fuels to power this equipment
leads to the emission of chemicals such as VOCs,
CO, NO2 and SO2, and particulate matter (US EPA
1991).
Plants also emit VOCs (e.g. isoprene,
monoterpenes) (Geron et al. 1994; Guenther 2002;
Nowak et al. 2002; Lerdau and Slobodkin 2002).
These compounds are natural chemicals that make
up essential oils, resins and other plant products,
and may be useful in attracting pollinators or
repelling predators. Complete oxidation of VOCs
ultimately produces carbon dioxide (CO2), but
CO is an intermediate compound in this process.
Oxidation of VOCs is an important component
of the global CO budget (Tingey et al. 1991); CO
also can be released from chlorophyll degradation
(Smith 1990). VOCs emitted by trees can also
contribute to the formation of O3. Because VOC
emissions are temperature dependent and trees
generally lower air temperatures, increased tree
cover can lower overall VOC emissions and,
consequently, O3 levels in urban areas (e.g.
Cardelino and Chameides 1990). Ozone inside
leaves can also be reduced due to the reactivity
with biogenic compounds (Calfapietra et al. 2009).
Trees generally are not considered as a source
of atmospheric NOx, though plants, particularly
agricultural crops, are known to emit ammonia.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Emissions occur primarily under conditions of
excess nitrogen (e.g. after fertilization) and during
the reproductive growth phase (Schjoerring 1991).
They can also make minor contributions to SO2
concentration by emitting sulfur compounds such
as hydrogen sulﬁde (H2S) and SO2 (Garsed 1985;
Rennenberg 1991). H2S, the predominant sulfur
compound emitted, is oxidized in the atmosphere
to SO2. Higher rates of sulfur emission from plants
are observed in the presence of excess atmospheric
or soil sulfur. However, sulfur compounds also
can be emitted with a moderate sulfur supply
(Rennenberg 1991). In urban areas, trees can
additionally contribute to particle concentrations
by releasing pollen and emitting volatile organic
and sulfur compounds that serve as precursors
to particle formation. From a health perspective,
pollen particles can lead to allergic reactions (e.g.
Cariñanosa et al. 2014).

2YHUDOOHƨHFWRIYHJHWDWLRQRQDLU
pollution
There are many factors that determine the
ultimate eﬀect of vegetation on pollution. Many
plant eﬀects are positive in terms of reducing
pollution concentrations. For example, trees can
reduce temperatures and thereby reduce emissions
from various sources, and they can directly remove
pollution from the air. However, the alteration of
wind patterns and speeds can aﬀect pollution
concentrations in both positive and negative
ways. In addition, plant compound emissions
and emissions from vegetation maintenance can
contribute to air pollution. Various studies on O3,
a chemical that is not directly emitted but rather
formed through chemical reactions, have helped
to illustrate the cumulative and interactive eﬀects
of trees.
One model simulation illustrated that a 20% loss in
forest cover in the Atlanta area due to urbanization
led to a 14% increase in O3 concentrations for a
day (Cardelino and Chameides 1990). Although
there were fewer trees to emit VOCs, an increase
in Atlanta’s air temperatures due to the increased
urban heat island, which occurred concomitantly
with tree loss, increased VOC emissions from
the remaining trees and other sources (e.g.

automobiles), and altered O3 chemistry such that
concentrations of O3 increased. Another model
simulation of California’s South Coast Air Basin
suggests that the air quality impacts of increased
urban tree cover may be locally positive or negative
with respect to O3. However, the net basinwide
eﬀect of increased urban vegetation is a decrease
in O3 concentrations if the additional trees are low
VOC emitters (Taha 1996).
Modelling the eﬀects of increased urban tree cover
on O3 concentrations from Washington, DC to
central Massachusetts revealed that urban trees
generally reduce O3 concentrations in cities, but
tend to slightly increase average O3 concentrations
regionally (Nowak et al. 2000). Modelling of the
New York City metropolitan area also revealed
that increasing tree cover by 10% within urban
areas reduced maximum O3 levels by about 4 ppb,
which was about 37% of the amount needed for
attainment (Luley and Bond 2002).

4. The role of plant biodiversity in
regulating air quality
The impacts of vegetation on air quality depend
in part on species and other aspects of plant
biodiversity. Plant biodiversity in an area is
inﬂuenced by a mix of natural and anthropogenic
factors that interact to produce the vegetation
structure. Natural influences include native
vegetation types and abundance, natural biotic
interactions (e.g. seed dispersers, pollinators, plant
consumers), climate factors (e.g. temperature,
precipitation), topographic moisture regimes, and
soil types. Superimposed on these natural systems
in varying degrees is an anthropogenic system
that includes people, buildings, roads, energy use
and management decisions. The management
decisions made by multiple disciplines within an
urban system can both directly (e.g. tree planting,
removal, species introduction, mowing, paving,
watering, use of herbicides and fertilizers) and
indirectly (e.g. policies and funding related to
vegetation and development) aﬀect vegetation
structure and biodiversity. In addition, the
anthropogenic system alters the environment (e.g.
changes in air temperature and solar radiation,

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

67

air pollution, soil compaction) and can induce
changes in vegetation structure (Nowak 2010).
Much is generally known about plant distribution
globally, but less is known about factors that aﬀect
the distribution of plant diversity and human
inﬂuences on plant biodiversity (Kreft and Jetz
2007). Variations in urban tree cover across
regions and within cities give an indication of the
types of factors that can aﬀect urban tree structure
and consequently biodiversity, with resulting
impacts on human health. One of the dominant
factors aﬀecting tree cover in cities is the natural
characteristics of the surrounding region. For
example, in forested areas of the US, urban tree
cover averages 34%. Cities within grassland areas
average 18% tree cover, while cities in desert
regions average only 9% tree cover (Nowak et al.
2001). Cities in areas conducive to tree growth
naturally tend to have more tree cover, as nonmanaged spaces tend to naturally regenerate
with trees. In forested areas, tree cover is often
speciﬁcally excluded by design or management
activities (e.g. impervious surfaces, mowing). In
the US, while the per cent tree cover nationally
in urban (35.0%) and rural areas (34.1%) are
comparable, urbanization tends to decrease overall
tree cover in naturally forested areas, but increase
tree cover in grassland and desert regions (Nowak
and Greenﬁeld 2012).

In urban areas, land use, population density,
management intensity, human preferences and
socioeconomic factors can aﬀect the amount of
tree cover and plant diversity (Nowak et al. 1996;
Hope et al. 2003; Kunzig et al. 2005). These factors
are often interrelated and create a mosaic of tree
cover and species across the city landscape. Land
use is a dominant factor aﬀecting tree cover
(Table 1). However, land use can also aﬀect species
composition, as non-managed lands (e.g. vacant)
tend to be dominated by natural regeneration of
native and exotic species. Within areas of managed
land use, the species composition tends to be
dictated by a combination of human preferences
for certain species (tree planting) and how much
land is allowed to naturally regenerate (Nowak
2010).
Tree diversity, represented by the common
biodiversity metrics of species richness (number of
species) and the Shannon–Wiener diversity index
(Barbour et al. 1980), varies among and within
cities and through time. Based on ﬁeld sampling
of various cities in North America (Nowak et al.
2008; Nowak 2010), species richness varied from
37 species in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to 109
species in Oakville, Ontario, Canada (Figure 1).
Species diversity varied from 1.6 in Calgary to
3.8 in Washington, DC (Figure 2). The species
richness in all cities is greater than the average
species richness in eastern US forests by county
(26.3) (Iverson and Prasad 2001). Species diversity

7DEOH0HDQSHUFHQWWUHHFRYHUDQGVWDQGDUGHUURU6(IRU86FLWLHVZLWKGLƨHUHQW
potential natural vegetation types (forest, grassland, desert) by land use (from Nowak
et al. 1996)
Forest

Grassland

Desert

Land use

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Park

47.6

5.9

27.4

2.1

11.3

3.5

Vacant/wildland

44.5

7.4

11.0

2.5

0.8

1.9

Residential

31.4

2.4

18.7

1.5

17.2

3.5

Institutional

19.9

1.9

9.1

1.2

6.7

2.0

Other

7.7

1.2

7.1

1.9

3.0

1.3

Commercial/industrial

7.2

1.0

4.8

0.6

7.6

1.8

Includes agriculture, orchards, transportation (e.g., freeways, airports, shipyards), and miscellaneous.

68

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

in these urban areas is also typically greater than
found in eastern US forests (Barbour et al. 1980).
Tree species diversity and richness is enhanced
in urban areas compared with surrounding
landscapes and/or typical forest stands, as native
species richness is supplemented with species
introduced by urban inhabitants or processes.

People often plant trees in urban areas to
improve aesthetics and/or the physical or social
environment. Some non-native species can be
introduced via transportation corridors or escape
from cultivation (e.g. Muehlenbach 1969; Haigh
1980).

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Species richness and values for tree populations in various cities. Numbers in parentheses are
sample size based on 0.04 hectare plots. (A) Dark line indicates average species richness in eastern US
forests by county (26.3).
Atlanta, Georgia (205)
Baltimore, Maryland (200)
Boston, Massachusetts (217)
Calgary, Alberta (350)
Freehold, New Jersey (144)
Jersey City, New Jersey (220)
Minneapolis, Minnesota (110)
Moorestown, New Jersey (206)
Morgantown, West Virginia (136)
New York City, New York (206)
Oakville, Ontario (372)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (210)
San Francisco, California (194)
Syracuse, New York (198)
Tampa, Florida (201)
Washington DC (201)
Wilmington, Delaware (208)
Woodbridge, New Jersey (215)
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Tree Species

Source: Nowak 2010

ɯǝɰ Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index values. Shaded area indicates typical range of diversity values for
forests in the eastern US (1.7–3.1).
Atlanta, Georgia (205)
Baltimore, Maryland (200)
Boston, Massachusetts (217)
Calgary, Alberta (350)
Freehold, New Jersey (144)
Jersey City, New Jersey (220)
Minneapolis, Minnesota (110)
Moorestown, New Jersey (206)
Morgantown, West Virginia (136)
New York City, New York (206)
Oakville, Ontario (372)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (210)
San Francisco, California (194)
Syracuse, New York (198)
Tampa, Florida (201)
Washington DC (201)
Wilmington, Delaware (208)
Woodbridge, New Jersey (215)
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Index Value

Source: Nowak 2010

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

69

One of the most important vegetation attributes
in relation to air quality is the amount of leaf
area. Leaf area varies by plant form, with leaf area
indices (m² leaf surface area per m² ground) of
agricultural areas typically around 3–5 and leaf
area indices of forests typically between 5 and
11 (Barbour et al. 1980). Thus, the magnitude
and distribution of vegetation types (e.g. grasses,
shrubs, trees) aﬀect air quality. In general, plant
types with more leaf area or leaf biomass have a
greater impact, either positive or negative, on air
quality.⁴
The second most important attribute related to
air quality is vegetation conﬁguration or design.
Though reduction in wind speeds can increase
local pollution concentrations due to reduced
dispersion of pollutants and mixing height of the
atmosphere, altering of wind patterns can also
have a potential positive eﬀect. Tree canopies
can potentially prevent pollution in the upper
atmosphere from reaching ground-level air space.
Measured diﬀerences in O3 concentration between
above- and below-forest canopies in California’s
San Bernardino mountains have exceeded 50 ppb
(40% improvement) (Byternowicz et al. 1999).
Under normal daytime conditions, atmospheric
turbulence mixes the atmosphere such that
pollutant concentrations are relatively consistent
with height. Forest canopies can limit the mixing
of upper air with ground-level air, leading to
below-canopy air quality improvements. However,
where there are numerous pollutant sources below
the canopy (e.g. automobiles), the forest canopy
could increase concentrations by minimizing the
dispersion of the pollutants away at ground level.
This eﬀect could be particularly important in
heavily treed areas near roadways (Gromke and
Ruck 2009; Wania et al. 2012; Salmond et al. 2013;
Vos et al. 2013). However, standing in the interior
of a forest stand can oﬀer cleaner air if there are
no local ground sources of emissions (e.g. from
automobiles). Various studies have illustrated
reduced pollutant concentrations in the interior of

forest stands compared to the outside of the forest
stands (e.g. Dasch 1987; Cavanagh et al. 2009).
The biodiversity of plant types within an area
aﬀects the total amount of leaf area and the
vegetation design. Following biodiversity related
to plant form, species diversity also aﬀects air
quality, as diﬀerent species have diﬀerent eﬀects
based on species characteristics. In general, species
with larger growth forms and size at maturity
have greater impacts, either positive or negative,
on air quality. The following are the types of air
quality impacts that can be aﬀected by species and
therefore species diversity:
Pollution removal: in addition to total leaf area
of a species, species characteristics that aﬀect
pollution removal are tree transpiration and leaf
characteristics. Removal of gaseous pollutants
is affected by tree transpiration rates (gas
exchange rates). As actual transpiration rates are
highly variable, depending upon site or species
characteristics, limited data exist on transpiration
rates for various species under comparable
conditions. However, relative transpiration factors
for various species can be gauged from estimated
monthly water use (Costello and Jones 1994).
Particulate matter removal rates vary depending
upon leaf surface characteristics. Species with
dense and ﬁne textured crowns and complex,
small and rough leaves would capture and retain
more particles than open and coarse crowns, and
simple, large, smooth leaves (Little 1997; Smith
1990). Species ranking of trees in relation to
pollution removal are estimated in i-Tree Species
(www.itreetools.org). In addition, evergreen trees
provide for year-round removal of particles.
VOC emissions: emission rates of VOCs vary
by species (e.g. Geron et al. 1994; Nowak et al.
2002). Nine tree genera that have the highest
standardized isoprene emission rate, and therefore
the greatest relative effect on increasing O3,
are beefwood (Casuarina spp.), Eucalyptus spp.,
sweetgum (Liquidambar spp.), black gum (Nyssa
spp.), sycamore (Platanus spp.), poplar (Populus

⁴ Within forests, leaf area also varies with tree age/size, with large healthy trees greater than 30 inches in stem diameter in
Chicago having approximately 60–70 times more leaf area than small healthy trees less than 3 inches in diameter (Nowak
1994).

70

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), black locust (Robinia
spp.) and willow (Salix spp.). However, due to
the high degree of uncertainty in atmospheric
modelling, results are currently inconclusive as to
whether these genera contribute to an overall net
formation of O3 in cities (i.e. O3 formation from
VOC emissions is greater than O3 removal).
Pollen: not only do pollen emissions and
phenology of emissions vary by species, but pollen
allergenicity also varies by species. Examples of
some of the most allergenic species are Acer
negundo (male), Ambrosia spp., Cupressus spp.,
Daucus spp., Holcus spp., Juniperus spp. (male),
Lolium spp., Mangifera indica, Planera aquatica,
Ricinus communis, Salix alba (male), Schinus spp.
(male) and Zelkova spp. (Ogren 2000).
Air temperature reduction: similar to
gaseous air pollution removal, species eﬀects
on air temperatures vary with leaf area and
transpiration rates. Leaf area aﬀects tree shading
of ground surfaces and also overall transpiration.
Transpiration from the leaves helps to provide
evaporative cooling. Both the shade and
evaporative cooling, along with eﬀects on wind
speed, aﬀect local air temperature and therefore
pollutant emission and formation.
Building energy conservation: although
the eﬀects of trees on building energy use is
dependent upon a tree’s position (distance and
direction) relative to the building, tree size also
plays a role on building energy eﬀects (McPherson
and Simpson 2000). Changes in building energy
use aﬀect pollutant emission from power plants.
Maintenance needs: like building energy
conversation, species maintenance needs have
a secondary eﬀect on air quality. Plant species
with greater maintenance needs typically require
more human interventions (planting, pruning,
removal) that utilize fossil fuel-based equipment
(e.g. cars, lawn mowers, chain saws). The more
fossil fuel-based equipment is used, the more
pollutant emissions are produced. Plant attributes
that aﬀect maintenance needs include not only
plant adaptation to site conditions but also plant

life span (e.g. shorter lived species require more
frequent planting and removal).
Pollution sensitivity: sensitivity to various
pollutants vary by plant species. For example,
Populus tremuloides and Poa annua are sensitive to
O3, but Tilia americana and Dactylis glomerata are
resistant. Pollutant sensitivity to various species
is given in Smith and Levenson (1980).

5. Impacts of air quality on plant
communities
Air pollution can affect tree health. Some
pollutants under high concentrations can damage
leaves (e.g. SO2, NO2, O3), particularly of pollutantsensitive species. For NO2, visible leaf injury would
be expected at concentrations around 1.6–2.6 ppm
for 48 hours, 0 ppm for 1 hour, or a concentration
of 1 ppm for as many as 100 hours (Natl. Acad.
of Sci. 1977a). Concentrations that would induce
foliage symptoms would be expected only in the
vicinity of an excessive industrial source (Smith
1990).
Eastern deciduous species are injured by exposure
to O3 at 0.20–0.30 ppm for 2–4 hours (Natl. Acad.
of Sci. 1977b). The threshold for visible injury of
eastern white pine is approximately 0.15 ppm for
5 hours (Costonis 1976). Sorption of O3 by white
birch seedlings shows a linear increase up to 0.8
ppm; for red maple seedlings the increase is up
to 0.5 ppm (Townsend 1974). Severe O3 levels in
urban areas can exceed 0.3 ppm (Oﬀ. Technol.
Assess. 1989). Injury eﬀects can include altered
photosynthesis, respiration, growth and stomatal
function (Lefohn et al. 1988; Shafer and Heagle
1989; Smith 1990).
Toxic eﬀects of SO2 may be due to its acidifying
inﬂuence and/or the sulﬁte (SO3²-) and sulfate
(SO4²-) ions that are toxic to a variety of biochemical
processes (Smith 1990). Stomata may exhibit
increases in either stomatal opening or stomatal
closure when exposed to SO2 (Smith 1984; Black
1985). Acute SO2 injury to native vegetation does
not occur below 0.70 ppm for 1 hour or 0.18 ppm
for 8 hours (Linzon 1978). A concentration of 0.25
ppm for several hours may injure some species

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

71

(Smith 1990). Indirect anthropogenic eﬀects can
alter species composition. For example, in a natural
park in Tokyo, Japanese red pine (Pinus densiﬂora)
was dying and being successionally replaced
with broad-leaved evergreen species (Numata
1977). This shift in species composition has been
attributed to SO2 air pollution, with the broadleaved species being more resistant to air pollution.

costs (often by orders of magnitude per study
site). Biodiversity metrics, such as the number
of sensitive species, relative abundance of
functional groups, or genotypic frequencies,
for example, are successfully employed for air
quality biomonitoring in many nations (Markert
et al. 1996; Aničić et al. 2009; Cao et al. 2009).
Measuring pollutant concentrations in lichen
and bryophyte tissues is another means of air
quality mapping (Augusto et al. 2007; Augusto
et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011; Root et al. 2013).
Most studies focus on environmental health
(i.e. evaluating pollutant-mediated harms to the
natural environment) to guide land management
and air quality regulation (Hawksworth and Rose
1970; Cape et al. 2009; Geiser et al. 2010). Health
and bioindicator experts often suggest utilizing
bioindicators in public health assessments to
overcome the lack of systematic air quality
measurements from instrumented monitoring
networks and for detecting chronic low levels of
pollution below the detection limits of monitoring
instruments (Brauer 2010; Augusto et al. 2012).
Tissue-based bioindicators enable high spatial
resolution mapping of toxic pollutants that are not
frequently measured by instrumented networks.
Nonetheless, it is rare for research to actually
integrate bioindicator and public health data.

Particulate trace metals can be toxic to plant leaves.
The accumulation of particles on leaves also can
reduce photosynthesis by reducing the amount of
light reaching the leaf. Damage to plant leaves can
also occur from acid rain (pH <3.0). Acid rain and
air pollution (NAPAP 1991) can be a source of the
essential plant nutrients of sulfur and nitrogen,
but also can reduce soil nutrient availability
through leaching or toxic soil reactions. Particles
can also aﬀect tree pest/disease populations.
Given the pollution concentration in most cities,
these pollutants would not be expected to cause
visible leaf injury, but could in cities or areas with
high pollutant concentrations.

6. Bioindicators
A bioindicator is a quality of an organism,
population, community or ecosystem used for
indicating the health or status of the surrounding
environment. Bioindicators, especially lichens
and bryophytes, are widely used for monitoring
air quality. The beneﬁts of direct measurements
of air quality include long-term integration of
pollution levels over time and lower operational

UNITED NATIONS PHOTO / FLICKR

Taking cues from the environment to assess air
quality is a relatively old science. Lichens were ﬁrst
described as “health meters for the air” in 1866,
when a Finnish botanist noted that certain species
were restricted to a large city park in Paris (Nylander
1866). While many organisms exhibit a measurable
response to pollution, lichen and bryophytes (i.e.
mosses and liverworts) are the most widely utilized
bioindicators in both environmental and human
health studies. Lichen and bryophytes lack root
structures and the capacity to store water, creating
a dependence on moisture and nutrients scavenged
from the atmosphere. By also lacking a protective
cuticle, they absorb water and contaminants much
like a sponge.

72

Biodiversity-based indices, including richness,
relative abundance or dominance of sensitive lichen
and bryophyte species are commonly used for
mapping deposition of nitrogen (N)- and sulphur

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

(S)-containing pollutants. Species’ sensitivities to
H2S, SO2, acidic deposition, HNO3, NH3, NOy, and
the N- and S-containing aerosols have been well
established through ﬁeld studies and controlled
fumigation experiments (Riddell et al. 2008;
Riddell et al. 2012). Biodiversity indices usually
correlate well with instrumented measurements
of pollutant deposition (Gadsdon et al. 2010;
Jovan et al. 2012), although some indices are
intentionally non-speciﬁc, meaning they are not
calibrated to track speciﬁc pollutants. In this
case, biodiversity measures are interpreted as
an integrated response to ‘air quality’ in general
(Castro et al. 2014), which may provide a useful
representation of human exposure as the human
body integrates pollution from multiple sources.
Nitrogen, S, as well as metals (Wolterbeek 2002),
radionuclides (Seaward 2002) and persistent
organic pollutants (POPs) like polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins and furans
(PCDD/Fs), polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs) and
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (Augusto
et al. 2013; Harmens et al. 2013) accumulate over
time in lichen and bryophyte tissues, allowing
their use as in-situ passive deposition monitors.
Lichens and bryophytes tolerate exposure to
many non-nutrient pollutants (e.g. heavy metals,
radionuclides, POPs), and so typical biodiversitybased indices cannot be utilized for this group.

6.1 Air quality bioindicators: ways
forward
There is clearly great potential for utilizing
bioindicators in human health research; yet few
scientists have done so. The use of bioindicator
data in health studies has barely been explored,
despite potential to overcome some of the most
persistent data gaps in public health research on
air quality. This potential can be explained by
the fact that obtaining spatially and temporally
representative air quality measurements is one
of the most pervasive issues in health studies
(Brauer 2010; Ribeiro et al. 2010) yet, for the
most part, health research utilizes bioindicator
maps tangentially or not at all. Bioindicators have
the advantage of being living organisms and thus
biologically reﬂecting the environment where they

are growing. This information is not likely to be
obtained through other monitoring methods,
which solely represent physicochemical measures
of pollutants. None of these research barriers
are insurmountable. The main issue appears to
be bringing together the right mix of skills. The
proposed ways forward include the following:
Cross-sectoral collaboration is needed to
foster information exchange and collaboration
between bioindicator specialists and public
health scientists. There is little crossover in the
professional activities of these groups at present,
and interdisciplinary workshops and meetings
could further reduce this gap.
Future research should highlight the need to
calibrate bioindicators with existing air monitoring
stations or passive samplers, which are more
ﬂexible. While expensive to collect, investment in
calibration data will facilitate the use of pollutant
thresholds in bioindicator maps and also help
deﬁne what time frame the bioindicator reﬂects,
including how seasonal variations or sudden
pollution episodes contribute to bioindicator
values. Even if causality or mechanism cannot
be established, an aﬀordable bioindicator with
the capacity to predict human health outcomes
remains valuable for further research.
For large health research institutions, maintaining
staﬀ dedicated to data dissemination is critical for
enabling access to detailed personal public health
data. These intermediaries often help, for instance,
by spatially joining bioindicator and health data, to
keep conﬁdential addresses for private residences.
Research that utilizes and cross-links resources
that are already available, such as high-resolution
maps from air quality and public health monitoring
studies, should be encouraged. Also, lichens and
bryophytes form the backbone of large-scale air
quality monitoring programmes in both Europe
(the International Co-operative Programme on
Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Eﬀects
on Forests operating under the UNECE Convention
on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution) and
the US (the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest
Inventory and Analysis Program).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

73

7. Knowledge gaps and ways
forward

strategies to help improve air quality include the
following:

There are numerous gaps in knowledge related
to biodiversity, including plant biodiversity
(species-speciﬁc eﬀects) and air quality. As there
are numerous species globally, these gaps are
felt across the world. However, leaf area is the
dominant characteristic that aﬀects many aspects
of air quality. Thus, general magnitudes of impact
can be assessed among plant communities based
on leaf area. The individual species eﬀects are
most important in determining variations within
plant communities, understanding the impacts of
biodiversity and guiding vegetation management.
There are gaps in all aspects of plant species eﬀects
on air quality, but some of the better-researched
aspects are related to VOC emissions, which
are species or genera dependent. Estimates and
comparisons of pollen allergenicity among plant
species also exist (e.g. Pettyjohn and Levetin
1997; Ogren 2000; Cariñanosa et al. 2014).
One of the least understood aspects related to
individual species characteristics and air quality
eﬀects relates to species-speciﬁc removal rates
(deposition velocities) for various pollutants. In
addition, while there are various studies relating
air pollution to human health, there are few
studies relating vegetation impacts to pollution
concentrations and human health eﬀects.

•

To facilitate air quality improvements through
biodiversity and management of vegetation,
there are various steps that managers and policymakers could take. The ﬁrst step could be to assess
the local species composition and biodiversity as
a basic foundation for understanding the local
vegetation structure. The second could be to assess
what impacts this current vegetation structure
has on air quality (e.g. estimating pollution
removal, VOC emissions, impacts on building
energy conservation and emissions, etc). To aid in
understanding the vegetation ecosystem services,
various models exist (e.g. i-Tree). Policy-makers
could also facilitate increased research to better
understand the eﬀects and impact of individual
species on air quality.
Local vegetation management decisions can help
improve air quality. Vegetation management

74

Increase the amount of healthy vegetation
(increases pollution removal).

•

Sustain the existing vegetation cover (maintains
pollution removal levels).

•

Maximize the use of low VOC-emitting species
(reduces O3 and CO formation).

•

Sustain large, healthy trees (large trees have
greater per-tree eﬀects).

•

Use long-living tree species (reduces long-term
pollutant emissions from planting and removal).

•

Use low-maintenance species (reduces pollutant
emissions from maintenance activities).

•

Reduce fossil fuel use in maintaining vegetation
(reduces pollutant emissions).

•

Plant trees in energy-conserving locations
(reduces pollutant emissions from power plants).

•

Plant trees to shade parked cars (reduces
vehicular VOC emissions).

•

Supply ample water to vegetation (enhances
pollution removal and temperature reduction).

•

Plant vegetation in polluted or heavily
populated areas (maximizes pollution removal and
air quality beneﬁts; however, speciﬁc vegetation
designs need to be considered so that they do not
increase local pollutant concentrations, such as
near roadways).

•

Avoid pollutant-sensitive species (improves
plant health).

•

Utilize evergreen species for particulate matter
(year-round removal of particles).
Through proper design and management, plant
systems and biodiversity can be utilized to
enhance air quality and provide numerous other
ecosystem services, and consequently improve the
health and well-being of people and ecosystems
across the globe.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

CRAIG HANSEN

5. Agricultural biodiversity, food
security and human health
1. Introduction
The world’s population has increased from roughly
2.5 billion people in 1950 to more than 7 billion
today (USCB 2013) and is anticipated to exceed
9 billion by 2050. This development, in parallel
with global aﬄuence and associated dietary shifts
(Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012; Tilman et al.
2011), has been accompanied by a parallel rise in
demand for food and other agricultural products
(Godfray et al. 2010). Food production is expected
to have to rise by a further 70–100% by 2050
(Tilman et al. 2001; Foley et al. 2005; Green et
al. 2005). Global food production systems have
largely kept pace with population growth over
the past 50 years due to conversion of natural
ecosystems to agriculture, intensification of
farming practices on existing agricultural lands,
improved varieties of crops and breeds of animals,
and improved agronomic practices (Wilby et
al. 2009). From 1980 to 2001, global cereal
production increased by 36% with a simultaneous
increase of 34% in areas under permanent crop
and in the use of nitrogen fertilizers (FAO
2003). While increases in food production have
contributed to feeding an additional 4 billion
people, improved human nutrition and reduced
hunger prevalence from 33% to 18% over the
past 40 years (Sanchez et al. 2005), the number of
chronically or acutely malnourished people remain
stubbornly high, still exceeding 800 million (FAO

2014). The improvements in food production (and
consequent beneﬁts in overall human health in
many areas) have also generally been accompanied
by a loss of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems, and
led to new public health challenges.
An adequate supply of safe and nutritious food is
one of the cornerstones of human health, and the
ways in which biodiversity and food production
are interrelated and inﬂuence each other are key
aspects of this relationship. Agriculture and food
production are also signiﬁcantly implicated in
the extent to which planetary boundaries have
been or are likely to be exceeded with respect to
nitrogen ﬂows, water usage, and land use change
(Rockstrom et al. 2009; Steﬀen et al. 2015), and
in the negative eﬀects of loss of biodiversity on
human health described in other chapters of this
volume.
This chapter focuses on the links between
agricultural biodiversity, food security and human
health. It covers both direct impacts, such as the
loss of arable land and natural habitat, and health
outcomes associated with modern agricultural
practices. The relationships between biodiversity
and nutrition are dealt with in a related chapter
in this volume.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

75

2. Agricultural biodiversityƸ
2.1 The contribution of agricultural
biodiversity to human health
Agricultural biodiversity (often referred to as
agrobiodiversity) includes all the components
of biological diversity of relevance to food and
agriculture, and those that constitute the agroecosystem: the variety and variability of animals,
plants and microorganisms at the genetic,
species and ecosystem levels, which sustain the
functions, structure and processes of the agroecosystem (FAO/PAR 2011). Created, managed
or inﬂuenced by farmers, pastoralists, ﬁshers and
forest dwellers, agricultural biodiversity continues
to provide many rural communities throughout
the world with stability, adaptability and resilience
in their farming systems and constitutes a key
element of their livelihood strategies (Altieri and
Merrick 1987; Brush 1999; Jarvis et al. 2011).
Agricultural biodiversity plays a critical role in
global food production and the livelihoods and
well-being of all, regardless of resource endowment
or geographical location. As such, it is an essential
component of any food system. Productive agro
ecosystems, both wild and managed, are the
source of our food and a prerequisite for a healthy
life, and agricultural biodiversity contributes to all
four pillars of food security.² The sustainability of
agroecosystems is dependent on the conservation,
enhancement and utilization of biodiversity.
Agricultural biodiversity provides the basic
resources needed to adapt to variable conditions in
marginal environments and the resources required
to increase productivity in more favourable
settings. Further, with global, especially climate,
change, there will be increasing interdependence
between farmers and communities all over the
world, who will be ever more reliant on the global

beneﬁts agricultural biodiversity can provide (MA
2005; Frison et al. 2011; Lockie and Carpenter
2010). All too often, the food used for human
consumption and the nutritional and health
beneﬁts biodiversity provides have been ignored
(De Clerck et al. 2011). When these links are
considered, biodiversity, agriculture and health
can form a common path leading to enhanced food
security and nutrition (Toledo and Burlingame
2006).
It has been estimated that some 7000 plant
species have been used by humans at one time or
another although some 82 crop species provide
90% of the energy currently consumed by humans
(Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen 1990). From
this total, 40% is provided by only three crops.
Despite this homogenization of production
systems, there remain several hundred neglected
and underutilized crops with signiﬁcant potential
to support diversiﬁcation, improve adaptability
to change and increase resilience (Kahane et al.
2013). In contrast, about 40 livestock species in
total contribute to today’s agriculture and food
production and only ﬁve species provide 95% of
the total (FAO, 2007; Heywood 2013).
For aquaculture, it has been estimated that over
230 spp. of ﬁnﬁsh, molluscs and crustaceans are
utilized but that 31 species are responsible for
95% of production (85% of which takes place in
Asia) (FAO 1996).³ As discussed in the chapter
on nutrition in this volume, crop, animal and
aquaculture species diversity also contribute
to dietary diversity, the variety of macro- and
micronutrients needed by humans, and multiple
livelihood beneﬁts.
Genetic diversity plays a particularly important
role in agriculture (FAO 2010). The development
of new varieties and breeds depends on the use of

¹ In this chapter, agriculture is taken to include crop and animal production, and freshwater aquaculture for food and other
goods and services. It does not include marine aquaculture and wild ﬁsh harvesting and covers forest production systems
only insofar as they contribute to food production.
² The Committee on Food Security describes food security as existing when all people, at all times, have physical, social and
economic access to suﬃcient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life. It identiﬁes four pillars of food security – availability, access, utilization and stability, and notes that
the nutritional dimension is integral to the concept of food security. See: http://www.fao.org/ﬁleadmin/templates/cfs/
Docs0910/ReformDoc/CFS_2009_2_Rev_2_E_K7197.pdf
³ See ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0283e/i0283e02.pdf

76

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 1. Risks to animal genetic resources
A total of 7616 livestock breeds from 180 countries are mentioned in the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) s Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. It
has been estimated that 30% of these are at risk of extinction. In contrast to crops plants where
signi cant populations of potentially valuable crop relatives exist in the wild, The state of the world’s
animal genetic resources for food and agriculture (FAO 2007) notes that “with the exception of the
wild boar (Sus scrofa), the ancestors and wild relatives of major livestock species are either extinct
or highly endangered as a result of hunting, changes to their habitats, and in the case of the wild red
jungle fowl, intensive cross-breeding with the domestic counterpart. Thus, domestic livestock are the
depositories of the now largely vanished diversity” (FAO 2007:6).

Box 2. Aquatic agroecosystems and human health
Aquatic agroecosystems, such as sh–rice systems of South and South-East Asia, contain a rich
diversity of edible species. For many rural populations living in these areas, rice and sh are the
main dietary staple. Aquatic animals are often the most important source of animal protein and are
essential during times of rice shortages, providing essential nutrients that may otherwise not be
adequate (Halwart 2006). Thus, wild and gathered foods from aquatic habitats provide important
diversity, nutrition and food security. Recent studies on the utilization of aquatic biodiversity from
rice-based ecosystems during one season only in Cambodia, China, Laos and Viet Nam found that
145 species of sh, 11 species of crustaceans, 15 species of molluscs, 13 species of reptiles, 11
species of amphibians, 11 species of insects and 37 species of plants were caught or collected
(Halwart 2013; Halwart 2006; Halwart and Bartley 2005).
Bangladesh contains a great variety of inland water bodies, including beels, ponds, rivers, canals,
ditches and rice paddy elds, which contain more than 267 freshwater sh species (Rahman 1989).
In particular, small indigenous sh species (Parambassis baculis, Parambassis ranga, Rohtee cotio,
Esomus danricus, Corica soborna, Chanda nama, Amblypharyngodon mola, Channa punctatus, Puntius
ssp.) are a rich source of highly bioavailable nutrients, animal protein and some, with a high fat
content, contain bene cial polyunsaturated fatty acids. Indigenous sh species, such as darkina
(Esomus danricus), have a high iron, zinc and vitamin A content (Thilsted 2013; see also the chapter
on nutrition).
Integrated aquatic agroecosystems demonstrate the many bene cial interactions between the
di erent elements of biodiversity that enhance food production and the ecosystem services that
support it while signi cantly increasing agricultural biodiversity and reducing production risks.
Rice plants contribute to improved water quality and ensure temperatures for optimum prawn and
sh production. Plants provide habitat and shelter for sh, reducing the risk of predation. Foraging
on aquatic sediments, including pests and weeds, and the consumption of phytoplankton by sh
enhances nutrient exchange between water and soil, and reduces the need for pesticides and
fertilizers. Small indigenous sh species also tend to be preferred by farming households and
constitute an important source of minerals, micronutrients and vitamins (Bunting and Ahmed 2014).

⁴ See also Climate change and adaptation and prawn-ﬁsh-rice agroecosystems, Landscapes Blog for People, Food and Nature
http://blog.ecoagriculture.org/2014/07/14/climate-change-adaptation-and-prawn-ﬁsh-rice-agroecosystems/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

77

the genetic diversity present in the target species.
The continuing increases in productivity achieved
over the past century have depended to a signiﬁcant extent on the continuing improvements made
by plant and animal breeders. The development
and maintenance of diﬀerent crop varieties, animal
breeds and aquatic species’ populations provide
the variety of food products that human societies
require. Their continued improvement provides
the basis for meeting increased food demands and
adaptability to changing production conditions and
practices. The importance of maintaining genetic
diversity is reﬂected in the global concern with the
conservation and use of genetic resources, as evidenced by the publication of reports on the state
of the world’s plant, animal and forestry genetic
resources (FAO 2007, 2010, 2014; see also Box 1),
the work of the FAO Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, the establishment of the Global Crop Diversity Trust and
the entry into force of the International Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Genetic diversity within production systems is
essential for the provision of ecosystem services
(Hajjar et al. 2008). Although production systems
have become increasingly uniform, and dominated
by a few varieties of major crops, many small-scale
farmers grow and maintain a number of diﬀerent
traditional varieties or breeds. Reasons for maintaining genetic diversity include: stability and risk
avoidance; adaptation and adaptability to variable,
diﬃcult or marginal environments and to environmental change; provision of key ecosystem services
such as pest and disease control, pollinator diversity, below-ground diversity and soil health; meeting
changing market demands, coping with distance
to market and adult labour availability; dietary or
nutritional value; and meeting cultural and religious
needs (see review by Jarvis et al. 2011).

3. Agricultural production, land
use, ecosystem services and
human health
Agricultural crops or planted pastures have become
the dominant form of land use, comprising almost
onethird of terrestrial land (Scherr and McNeely
2008). Today more than one third (38%) of the

78

terrestrial landscape has been converted for
agriculture, with the majority (26%) of converted
land dedicated to livestock production (Foley
et al. 2011). In addition to food production
from agriculture, between 1% and 5% of food is
produced in natural forests (Wood et al. 2000).
Ellis and Ramankutty (2008) have estimated
that more than 75% of the earth’s ice-free land
shows evidence of alteration as a result of human
residence and land use. Over 1.1 billion people,
mostly dependent on agriculture, live within the
world’s 25 biodiversity “hot spots” (Cincotta and
Engelman 2000; Myers et al. 2002). The ways in
which humankind has inﬂuenced or managed the
diﬀerent biomes around the world has resulted
in a wide diversity of production systems (Ellis
et al. 2010), and each production system or
combination has diﬀerent features, both in terms
of the biodiversity found within the system and
associated impacts on human health.
Changes in land use and agricultural intensiﬁcation
have been two of the most important drivers of
biodiversity loss in both natural and agricultural
productions systems (MA 2005). In the section
that follows, the major eﬀects of these changes
on agricultural biodiversity and human health are
summarized, and alternative pathways to ensuring
adequate food production in ways that support
co-beneﬁts are identiﬁed.

3.1 Land use, land conversion and
LQWHQVLƩFDWLRQ
3.1.1 Land use and the expansion of
arable land
Heterogeneous patterns in land cover change
have followed human settlement and economic
development (Richards 1990; Grigg 1974;
Roberson 1956). Over the past three centuries,
roughly 12 million km² of forest and woodlands
have been cleared, and 5.6 million km² of grassland
and pastures have been converted (Richards
1990). At the same time, cropland areas have
increased by 12 million km², and some 18 million
km² (equivalent to the size of South America) are
under some form of cultivation (Ramankutty and
Foley 1998).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

With land conversion has come significant
biodiversity losses as complex forest, grassland
and wetland communities were converted
into highly simpliﬁed cropping landscapes. In
addition to the health eﬀects of simpliﬁcation and
homogenization, land conversion aﬀects human
health in ﬁve primary ways:

tropics has come from the clearing of forests
(Gibbs 2010). Forest and woodlands are important
carbon sinks, they play an important role in the
regulation of climate (Shvidenko et al. 2005),
water ﬂow and water quality (Shvidenko et al.
2005) and are important sources of ﬁbre and fuel
for numerous communities (Sampson et al. 2005).

i) Change in the delivery of supporting and
regulating services from natural habitat
important for agricultural production;

Land use change, particularly deforestation for
agriculture, is a leading contributor of carbon
dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas that is the
primary contributor to climate change. An
estimated 1.3 T 0.7 Pg C year-¹ of CO2 is emitted
as a result of tropical land-use change (Pan et al.
2011), and land-use change accounts for 20–24%
of all CO2 emissions annually (IPCC 2014).
Although there is currently little agreement on
the net biophysical eﬀect of land-use changes on
the global mean temperature, its biogeochemical
eﬀects on radiative forcing through greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions was found to be positive
(Working Group I Chapter 8; Myhre and Shindell
2013). The impacts of climate change are expected
to both aﬀect and be aﬀected by the agricultural
sector, with rising global temperature exceeding
the thermal tolerance of certain crops (Bita and
Gerats 2013), more erratic precipitation patterns
(Rosenzwieg et al. 2001) and greater incidence of
disease outbreaks (Rosenzwieg et al. 2001).

ii) The loss of habitat for wild species, which
contribute to diets in many parts of the world
(reviewed in the chapter on nutrition);
iii) Increased interaction with disease host,
vectors and reservoirs (discussed brieﬂy here
and reviewed in the chapter on infectious
diseases);
iv) Loss of medicinal plants (reviewed in the
chapter on traditional medicine);
v) Cultural ecosystem services and mental wellbeing associated with interactions with nature
and landscapes (see the chapter on mental
health in this volume).
Most land conversion is currently taking place
in tropical forest regions, home to some of the
highest levels of biodiversity globally and a critical
biome regulating global ecosystem services. Since
the 1980s, 55% of new agricultural land in the

With the most fertile lands already used
for farming, land conversion for agriculture
increasingly brings marginal and/or fragile lands

Box 3. Soil health and agricultural biodiversity
The importance of agricultural biodiversity in supporting soil health and associated regulating and
supporting ecosystem services has been reviewed by Swift et al. (2004). The importance of diversity
of soil biota and of the maintenance of all components of the soil food web, and of diversity within
di erent levels has been described by Beed et al. (2011), Gliessman (2007) and M der et al. (2002).
However, the amount of diversity that is needed or desirable is the subject of some debate and some
authors have argued that, in functional terms, saturation is reached at fairly low levels of species
diversity. There is growing evidence that natural and less intensive agricultural production systems
have higher levels of diversity than those under intensive agriculture and that higher levels of
diversity are associated with improved delivery of key ecosystem services. Swift et al. (2004) have
noted the importance of maintaining total system diversity and of practices, such as conservation
agriculture, and mulching, which ensure higher diversity levels in the soil.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

79

under cultivation. Conversion of forested hillsides
and the further expansion of arable farming into
nutrient-poor tropical soils may lead to poor yields,
with large losses in biodiversity (see Box 3 on soil
health). It is expected that land conversion will
continue to increase in some areas, particularly
in biodiversity hotspots around the tropics where
human population pressures are mounting (Myers
2000). This can also lead to increased incidence of
infectious diseases, covered in a separate chapter in
this volume. Other areas may see abandonment of
marginal agricultural lands (Grau et al. 2004), and

a forest transition with the return of signiﬁcant
areas of natural vegetation and biodiversity with
land abandonment and replanting (Rudel et al.
2005).

3.1.ã !ntensiÍ;ation and e;osQsteE
serNi;es
Farmers are bringing more land under cultivation
and intensifying land use on existing farmlands
by removing fallow periods, hedgerows, ditches
and green spaces, enlarging ﬁelds and expanding
land under permanent cultivation (Stoate et al.

%R[/LYHVWRFNLQWHQVLƩFDWLRQ
As global incomes increase, diets increasingly shift from the protein derived from plant products
to increased consumption of meat, dairy and eggs, adding pressure on farming systems to increase
livestock production (Tilman et al. 2011). Global meat production is projected to more than double
from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to
climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes (FAO 2006). Already livestock production uses 30% of the
earth s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33% of the global arable
land used to produce feed for livestock (FAO 2006; Cassidy et al. 2013). While livestock makes an
important contribution to food security, its increased consumption is also a contributing factor to the
increase in noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and can have negative impacts on biodiversity (as
discussed in the chapter on nutrition in this volume).
Livestock feed crops (maize, soya) in low-diversity and high-intensity cultivation systems are a very
ine cient use of resources and crop calories. For every kilogram of beef produced, 1 kg of feed is
needed (USDA 2002). At present, 36% of calories produced by cropping systems is used for animal
feed of which only 12% are ultimately used for human consumption (Cassidy et al. 2013). It has
been estimated that if these calories were consumed by people directly, the current global food
production system could feed an additional 4 billion (Cassidy et al. 2013), meeting our estimated
population growth forecasts for 2050.
The conversion of land for pasture is a major driver of deforestation. For example, in Latin America,
some 70% of former Amazonian forest has been turned over to grazing (FAO 2006). Widespread
overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above-and below-ground water
resources. Beyond land conversion, the livestock sector can also be deleterious to increasingly scarce
water resources with negative implications for human health (McMichael et al. 2007). Animal wastes
antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed
crops contribute substantially to water pollution, eutrophication and the degeneration of coral reefs,
while also posing health risks, such as antibiotic resistance (FAO 2006; Horrigan et al. 2002). The use
of these products not only a ects biodiversity but also has health consequences, for example, by
a ecting drinking water quality, increasing the risks for several types of cancer, undermining local
sheries – another important source of dietary protein – and contributing to endocrine disruption
and reproductive dysfunction (Horrigan et al. 2002; see also chapter on freshwater in this volume).

80

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

2001; Wilby et al. 2009; Frison et al. 2011), as
well as use of more agro-chemicals and inputs (see
section 3.3.1). Although small in size, fragments
of natural habitat within agricultural landscapes
are important for the provision of a number of
agricultural ecosystem services (Mitchell et al.
2013) and for maintaining wildlife habitats and
corridors, which can contribute to sustainability
and conservation. The supporting and regulating
services upon which agriculture depends include
pollination, pest control, soil health, water
regulation and nutrient cycling, largely provided by
associated biodiversity in and around production
systems (Kremen et al. 2007).
It has been estimated that, based on current trends
of greater agricultural intensiﬁcation in richer
nations and greater land clearing (extensiﬁcation)
in poorer nations, an estimated 1 billion ha of
land may be cleared globally by 2050 (Tilman et
al. 2011). However, according to FAO estimates,
only about 70 million ha of additional land is likely
to be used by 2050 (FAO/PAR, 2011). In contrast,
if the crop demand in 2050 was met by moderate
intensiﬁcation focused on existing croplands in
countries where potential exists, combined with
the use of appropriate technologies, only some
0.2 billion ha would be needed.
The scale and nature of land conversion is
also important to the continuing provision of
ecosystem services. Many essential ecosystem
services are delivered by organisms that depend
on habitats that are segregated spatially or
temporally from the location where services are
provided, such as farmed ﬁelds (Kremen et al.
2007; Mitchell et al. 2013). Fine-scale green spaces
such as hedgerows, ditches, green strips are critical
habitats for important agricultural biodiversity
such as bees, birds, arthropods and mammals,
and a source of many of the ecosystems services
important for agriculture (Ricketts 2004, 2008;
Kremen et al. 2007, 2012; Kremen and Miles
2012; Horrigan et al. 2002; Mitchell et al. 2013).
Management of organisms contributing to
ecosystem services requires consideration not
only of the local scale where services are delivered
(i.e. farmed ﬁelds), but also the distribution of
resources at the landscape scale, and the foraging

ranges and dispersal movements of the mobile
agents (Kremen et al. 2007). Two examples of
the contribution of agricultural biodiversity to
ecosystem services are pollination and pest and
disease control.

3.2 Pollination
The importance of insect pollination for
agriculture is unequivocal, and yet global
pollinator populations are in signiﬁcant decline
(Potts et al. 2010) with potential consequences for
pollination-dependent crop yields. Globally, 35%
of crops depend on pollinators (Klein et al. 2007)
with an additional 60–90% of wild plant species
also requiring animal pollination (Husband and
Schemske 1996; Kearns et  al. 1998; Ashman
et al. 2004). Pollination services also contribute
to the livelihoods of many farmers. It has been
estimated that in 2005, the total economic value of
pollination worldwide was €153 billion, equivalent
to 9.5% of the value of the world agricultural
production used for human consumption. In
terms of welfare, the consumer surplus loss was
estimated at between €190 and €310  billion
(Gallia et al. 2009).
Many of the crops for which pollination is
essential, including fruits and vegetables, are
important sources of micronutrients and vitamins
(Eilers et al. 2011). Pollinated crops contribute
90% of the vitamin C, 100% of lycopene and
almost all of the antioxidants β-cryptoxanthin
and β-tocopherol, the majority of the lipid vitamin
A and related carotenoids, calcium and ﬂuoride,
and a large portion of folic acid in our diets (Eilers
et al. 2011). In terms of calories, approximately
one third of the human diet comes from insectpollinated plants (USDA 2002; Tscharntke et al.
2012). Many forage crops for livestock (e.g. clover)
are also pollination dependent (see the chapter on
nutrition for a case study on pollination).
For pollinated crop species, ﬁeld size and distance
to natural habitat edges is a strong predictor of
fruit set (Klein et al. 2003; Ricketts et al. 2004,
2008). As hedgerows and green spaces have been
eliminated from farming landscapes, and pesticide
use has expanded, problems of ensuring adequate

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

81

pollination have increased. There is an increasing
trade in honey bees to provide pollination services,
although this is facing problems that appear to
result from an unknown combination of habitat
loss (Naug 2009), chemical use (neonicotinoids)
(Maus et al. 2003) and disease resulting in colony
collapse (reviewed in Ratnieks and Carreck 2010).
Wild insect pollinators are often much more
eﬀective than honey bees but their delivery of
this essential ecosystem service is also strongly
compromised by habitat loss, land conversion and
chemical usage.

3.3 Pest control
A major health concern associated with
agricultural intensiﬁcation is the increased use of
pesticides. Among them, direct exposure to some
pesticides have been associated with neurological,
reproductive and genotoxic eﬀects (Sanborn et al.
2007) and, in some cases, prolonged exposure to
certain pesticides has been found to increase the
risks for certain cancers, including non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, leukaemia, brain and prostate cancers,
among others (Bassil et al. 2007).
The simplification of landscapes through the
enlargement of ﬁelds and loss of natural habitat
areas also inﬂuences natural pest control services
provided by associated biodiversity. These services
help to reduce pest population numbers without
the use of pesticides. Non-crop areas such as
meadows, hedgerows and forest patches provide
a habitat for a wide range of natural enemies
of crop and animal pests and diseases (birds,
aphids, etc.). Interspersion of natural habitats in
the landscape matrix promotes the movement
of natural enemies between crop and non-crop
habitats, which is lost in landscapes dominated
by arable cropland (Bianchi et al. 2006).
In a review of studies, Bianchi et al. (2006) showed
that in 74% and 45% of cases, respectively, natural
enemy populations were higher and pest pressure
lower in complex landscapes versus simple
landscapes. Pest predator activity was equally
associated with herbaceous habitats, wooded
habitats and landscape patchiness (Bianchi et
al. 2006), suggesting that maintaining all three

82

habitat types are important for the provision
of pest control services. In structurally complex
landscapes, Thies and Tscharntke (1999) showed
that parasitism was higher and crop damage
was lower than in simple landscapes. Landscape
diversity can also be an eﬀective way to control
non-native introduced crop pests (an emerging
threat for many agricultural systems) through
enhanced pest control services by native wildlife
(Gardiner et al. 2009).
The value of diversity and the importance of
maintaining natural prey/predator relations for
pest control have been demonstrated in many
crops (Hajjar et al. 2008). Gurr et al. (2003) list
examples that range from the local ﬁeld level to
landscapes, and integrated pest management
(IPM) programmes in Asia have shown that
conserving arthropod diversity is a key ingredient
of their eﬀectiveness. Pretty et al. (2006) analysed
62 IPM projects in 21 countries and found that in
47 of them yields increased by an average of 42%
while pesticide use declined by 71%.
Genetic diversity can also make a signiﬁcant
contribution (Finckh and Wolfe 2006) to pest
and disease control. Large-scale deployment
of mixtures of crop varieties in barley and rice
have demonstrated that, even with relatively
few components, improvements in both yield
and yield stability can be achieved (Wolfe et al.
1981; Zhu et al. 2000). Further work by Jarvis and
collaborators (e.g. Mulumba et al. 2012) has shown
that diversity of traditional crop varieties in crops
as diverse as banana, maize and bean improves
the stability of production without a reduction in
the crop productivity. Tooker et al. (2012) have
described the use of genotypically diverse variety
mixtures for insect pest management. The use of
genetic diversity to reduce the impact of epidemics
has been described by De Vallavieille-Pope (2004).
The use of diversity-based approaches to pest
management in Africa are also described in Abate
et al. (2000).
Crop management practices can also inﬂuence the
eﬃciency of pest control services. Intercropping
and inclusion of non-crop strips within ﬁelds
have been shown to increase the abundance

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

of spiders (important pest predators) by 33%
(reviewed in Sunderland and Samu 2000), whereas
management practices such as undersowing,
mulching and reduced tillage were shown to
enhance spider abundance by 80% (reviewed
in Sunderland and Samu 2000). Temporal and
spatial rotation of crops on ﬁelds is another
important technique used to reduce the build-up
of pathogens in soils and spread between plants
(Abawi and Widmer 2000).

in the soil also reduce the symbiotic eﬃciency
of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants.
More speciﬁcally, the insecticides DDT, methyl
parathion, and especially pentachlorophenol
have been shown to interfere with legume–
rhizobium chemical signalling. The environmental
consequences are an increased dependence on
synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers, reduced soil
fertility, and unsustainable long-term crop yields
(Fox et al. 2007).

Reduced pest activity not only increases potential
food production, but it may also reduce or
eliminate the need for pesticides and reduce the
presence of deleterious compounds associated
with speciﬁc pests.

2. Because of their indiscriminate mode of action,
herbicides have a direct negative eﬀect on plants
that occur in and around agricultural production
systems. These include crop wild relatives and
plants used for integrated pest management
strategies, such as the push – pull system. A
number of pesticides have also been shown to have
some direct harmful eﬀect on plants, including
poor root hair development, shoot yellowing and
reduced plant growth (Walley et al. 2006).

3.3.1 ,he use of pesti;ides and
fertiliRers in a?ri;ultural produ;tion
The negative eﬀects of pesticides on human health,
biodiversity and agricultural biodiversity have
been well documented. Pesticides aﬀect almost
all living organisms and it has been estimated
that more than 95% of herbicides and insecticides
sprayed over agricultural ﬁelds reach a destination
other than their target species (Tyler Miller
1994). Pesticides can be carried away by runoﬀ
water, seepage and leaching into ground-water,
streams and aquatic environments, and through
soil erosion. Through drift or evaporation, air
can transport them for short and long distances,
contaminating other areas, including wildlife
(Cornell University 2001b; National Park Service
2014; Papendick et al. 1986). The following
examples illustrate the eﬀect of pesticides on
agricultural biodiversity:
1. As persistent soil contaminants, pesticides
negatively aﬀect soil biota leading to lower organic
matter content and reduced water retention, the
latter reducing yields in drought years (Lotter et al.
2003). The reduction in soil- dependent ecosystem
services, such as carbon and nitrogen cycling,
leads to a situation of increased dependence on
externally derived chemical inputs to support
production – in fact, a negative feedback loop. The
overall long-term eﬀect of pesticides is a reduction
in soil biodiversity (Johnston 1986). Pesticides

3. It has been estimated that farmers in the United
States (US) lose at least $200 million a year from
reduced crop pollination because pesticides applied
to ﬁelds eliminate about a ﬁfth of honeybee
colonies in the US and harm an additional 15%
(Tyler Miller 2004). Henry et al. (2012) found
that, even with very low levels of the pesticide
thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid insecticide, in the
bee’s diet a high proportion of bees (more than
one third) suﬀered from orientation disorder and
were unable to come back to the hive, putting the
colony at risk of collapse (colony collapse disorder)
(see also Whitehorn et al. 2012). The pesticide
concentration was much smaller than the lethal
dose currently used, and its application, together
with clothianidin and imidacloprid, was restricted
by the European Union in April 2013 (Wall Street
Journal 2013).
The repeated application of many of the chemicals
used as pesticides increases pest resistance, while
its eﬀects on other species can facilitate the pest’s
resurgence (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos 2011).
This is true not only of fungicides, insecticides and
bacteriocides but also of herbicides. The law of
diminishing returns comes into force and requires
increasing use of such pesticides with decreasing

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

83

beneﬁcial eﬀects and increasing detrimental eﬀects
on both the environment and human health.
The pesticide production industry is dynamic
and able to develop, test and market an
increasing range of chemical compounds, which
have tended to become more specific and to
have fewer deleterious side-effects. However,
many pesticides remain generic with respect to
the class of organism aﬀected. There are now
established international and national processes
aimed at limiting the use of pesticides that have
unacceptable negative eﬀects on the environment
or humans. The “Stockholm Convention on the
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
from Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)” came
into force in 2004. It restricts and ultimately
aims to eliminate the production and use of listed
chemicals. This Convention also promotes the use
of both chemical and non-chemical alternatives to
POPs. Twelve chemical compounds – “the dirty
dozen” – were on the Convention’s original list of
POPs. Nine of the 12 are pesticides (Gilden et al.
2010; UNEP 2005), including DDT (which is still
used to control malaria). To date, ten more POPs
have been added to this list and others are under
review (UNEP 2013). Advances in agrochemistry
have generally allowed pesticides to become more
species-speciﬁc and to reduce their environmental
impact. Moreover, the amount applied has declined
in many cases, sometimes by 99% (Lamberth. et al
2013). The global spread of pesticide use, however,
including the use of older or obsolete pesticides
that have been banned in some jurisdictions,
continues (Kohler and Triebskom 2013).
It is likely that most farmers use pesticides of some
kind or other at some stage in their production
(Alavanja 2009). Even many small- scale farmers
in developing countries will use some pesticides
and this can create major health problems through
lack of appropriate equipment or knowledge, or
through the use of outdated products. The US
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) report
on Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage (2006 and
2007 Market Estimates) reports that the amount
of pesticide used worldwide was approximately
2.36 billion kg on average in 2006 and 2007, of
which more than 0.5 billion kg (21%) was used

84

in the United States. Herbicides (including plant
growth regulators) accounted for the largest
portion of total use, followed by other pesticides,
insecticides and fungicides. Although the total
global consumption of pesticides increased in
2007 (US Environmental Protection Agency
2011), there is evidence that countries can make
a signiﬁcant diﬀerence through their legislation
and regulations to the amounts of pesticide used.
For example, Indonesia reduced expenditure on
pesticides (an estimate of total amount used) from
a high of US$ 120–160 million in the period from
1980–1987 to US$ 30–40 million in the following
5 years.
It has been estimated that as many as 25 million
agricultural workers in the developing world,
where programmes to control exposure are limited
or non-existent (Alavanja 2009), experience
unintentional acute pesticide poisoning each
year (Jeyaratnam 1990). While the acute eﬀects
of pesticides are well documented in the literature,
especially with respect to organophosphate
poisoning (Sanborn et al. 2004), it is much less
easy to assess the chronic eﬀects of pesticide
exposure. Sanborn et al. (2004 and 2012)
conducted systematic reviews to establish whether
chronic exposure to pesticides had adverse health
eﬀects. Many of the reviewed studies showed
positive statistically significant associations
between health problems and pesticide exposure.
The continuing presence of pesticides in food,
water and soil is also responsible for signiﬁcant
risks to health (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2007).
Depending on their nature, properties and mode
of use, exposure to pesticides can have a wide
range of negative health eﬀects (Cornell University
2001a). These include the following:

•

Reproductive eﬀects: eﬀects on the reproductive
system or on the ability to produce healthy
oﬀspring;

•

Teratogenic eﬀects: eﬀects on unborn oﬀspring,
such as birth defects;

• Carcinogenic eﬀects: produces cancer in living
animal tissues;

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

•

Oncogenic eﬀects: tumour-forming eﬀects (not
necessarily cancerous);

pyrethroids, the most frequently used insecticide
in malaria vector control (WHO 2014).

•

The development of resistance in diseaseproducing organisms, or in vectors of human
disease, as a result of pesticide overuse is one
example where health problems can be combined
with ecological imbalance and the development
of large pest populations. The use of herbicides
in rural areas can also have associated negative
effects by reducing the availability of many
gathered foods and thus deprives communities
of important sources of dietary diversity. The
same is true of the negative eﬀects of pesticides
on pollinators and the availability of honey in
rural areas. More generally, the use of pesticides
as a part of simpliﬁed agricultural systems, while
increasing the production of major staples, can lead
to production systems that are more vulnerable
to change and stress, resulting in much greater
ﬂuctuations in yield, which renders farmers and

Mutagenic eﬀects: permanent eﬀects on genetic
material that can be inherited;

•

Neurotoxicity: poisoning of the nervous
system, including the brain;

•

Immunosuppression: blocking of natural
responses of the immune system responsible for
protecting the body.

BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL

The direct negative effects of pesticides on
biodiversity and human health are numerous but
it should be recalled that there have also been
very tangible benefits to human health from
the use of pesticides and insecticides, such as in
malaria control programmes. However, insecticide
resistance in malaria vectors was also reported in
53 of 65 reporting countries around the world since
2010. The most commonly reported resistance is to

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

85

rural communities liable to complete losses in
production and loss of food security.

Fertilizers
The overuse of synthetic fertilizers has major
negative effects on biodiversity, particularly
freshwater and marine biodiversity and soil biota.
It also has negative eﬀects on human health,
most obviously perhaps through pollution of
groundwater and reduction in the availability
of unpolluted fresh water. As with pesticides,
there are points of interaction between loss of
biodiversity and human health such as through
the damaging effect of algal blooms and the
increased frequency of toxic phytoplankton as
described in the chapter on freshwater in this
volume. The increasing size of marine dead
zones also has a signiﬁcant negative eﬀect on the
availability of ﬁsh for human consumption. While
the application of synthetic fertilizers makes a
signiﬁcant contribution to improving overall food
production and may be especially important in
parts of Africa, for example, overuse has created
major environmental problems in Asia. Large-scale
synthetic fertilizer use is often associated with
reduced adaptability and resilience in production
systems and, in some stress situations, with
reduced yield stability. Both synthetic fertilizers
and pesticides can create negative feedback loops
in which the reduced agricultural biodiversity
associated with their use is accompanied by
production problems associated particularly with
loss of soil biota.
The negative eﬀects of synthetic fertilizers on soil
biota, soil acidiﬁcation and groundwater pollution
can be signiﬁcant (Osborne 2011). Nitrogen that is
not taken up by plants is transformed into nitrate,
which is easily washed oﬀ the soil into watercourses
or leached through soil into groundwater (Jackson
et al. 2008; Barabasz et al. 2002). Nitrate levels
above 10  mg/L in groundwater can cause
acquired methaemoglobinemia in infants (also
called “blue baby syndrome”), which leads to
an overall reduced ability of the red blood cell
to release oxygen to tissues, possibly leading to
tissue hypoxia (Knobeloch et al. 2000; Self and
Waskom 2013). High N fertilizer rates applied to

86

arable, grassland and horticultural soils can also
lead to the accumulation of nitrites and organic
nitrogen compounds such as amines, nitro and
nitroso compounds, including nitrosamines and
nitrosamides (Barabasz et al. 2002).
Many studies have shown that mineral
fertilization strongly aﬀects both the number of
microorganisms in the soil and the make-up of
communities of soil microorganisms (Barabasz et
al. 2002). Use of mineral fertilizers can also lead to
increased heavy metal accumulation in soils, and
potential health problems have been identiﬁed
in connection with increased levels of cadmium,
arsenic, lead and mercury. Eutrophication is also
a major problem caused by the excessive inputs
of phosphorus and nitrogen in lakes, reservoirs,
rivers and coastal oceans (Smith and Schindler
2009, see also the Box on eutrophication in the
chapter on freshwater).

3.4 Non-food crops
The demand for non-food crops has grown with
the population and increasing prosperity. This
has resulted in the conversion of larger areas of
land for the production of (what some consider)
“luxury” foods (e.g. coﬀee, tea, cacao), ﬁbres (e.g.
cotton), biofuels and oil (e.g. palm oil, rapeseed).
Many of these crops grow exclusively in tropical
climates (e.g. coﬀee, tea, cacao, oil palm) with
production areas occurring almost wholly within
areas identiﬁed as biodiversity hotspots (Myers
et al. 2000), suggesting that production of
such crops may have an environmental impact
disproportional to its area (Donald 2004). The
expansion of production of these crops in the
twentieth and twenty-ﬁrst centuries has come at
great expense to local biodiversity (reviewed in
Donald et al. 2004).

3.5 Impacts of agricultural
LQWHQVLƩFDWLRQRQKXPDQKHDOWK
Agricultural intensiﬁcation has involved the use of
increasingly productive crop varieties and animal
breeds, combined with the continually expanding
use of chemical inputs, fossil fuel energy and
water in both plant and animal production
systems. The most important chemical inputs

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

have been pesticides of many diﬀerent types and
fertilizers. Fossil fuel energy inputs have included
mechanization of cultivation and harvesting,
and the use of more intensive animal production

systems. Food transport and processing have also
become increasingly important aspects of the
overall food system with consequences both for
human health and agricultural biodiversity.

Box 5. Case study: biofuels
Crops for industrial use, including biofuels, make up 9% of crops by mass, 9% by calorie content,
and 7% of total plant protein production, diverting a considerable quantity of food away from
human consumption (Cassidy et al. 2013). In 2000, biofuel production alone represented 3% of
crop production and is estimated to have increased more than 450% (in terms of litres produced)
between the year 2000 and 2010 (WWI 2009), suggesting that increasing areas of land are being
dedicated to the production of intensively managed corn, vegetable oils and sugarcane (Cassidy
et al. 2013). Based on biofuel statistics from 2010, ethanol production from maize in the United
States and from sugarcane in Brazil alone now represents 6% of global crop production by mass
and 4% of calorie production (FAPRI 2011). Although biofuels are meant to help reduce the
dependence on carbon-dense energy sources and reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate
change, the production of food crops for biofuels can have additional negative impacts on human
health associated with (i) intense production techniques (i.e. air quality from forest burning, high
chemical use and contamination of waterways) and (ii) diversion of crop calories away from the food
production system. In addition to biofuels, signi cant portions of cultivated land are dedicated to the
production of bres, in particular cotton, as described in the chapter on freshwater.

Box 6. Case study: vegetable oils
Vegetable oils are among the most rapidly expanding agricultural sectors (Clay 2004), and more
palm oil is produced than any other vegetable oil (Carter et al. 2007). A native of West Africa, oil palm
(Elaeis guineensis) is grown across more than 13.5 million ha of tropical, high-rainfall, low-lying areas,
a zone naturally occupied by moist tropical forest, the most biologically diverse terrestrial ecosystem
on earth (Corley and Tinker 2003, MEA 2005). Palm oil has some of the world s largest plantations,
sometimes exceeding 20000 ha (Donald 2004), cut out of the tropical rainforests of Indonesia,
Malaysia and increasingly in Latin America. This has resulted in extensive clearing and burning
of carbon-rich forests and peat lands, contributing to biodiversity loss, poor air quality a ecting
respiratory health particularly in South-East Asia, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere (Clay 2004).
Examination of palm oil cultivation in contrast to shaded co ee, pasture and natural forest found
that palm plantations supported extremely low levels of birds, lizards, beetles and ant communities
(Power and Flecker 1998; Chung et al. 2000; Glor et al. 2001).
Per unit area, palm oil is the highest-yielding vegetable oil crop; the current global production of oil
palm fruit is estimated at 97.7 million tons, produced from 10.7 million ha; production is increasing
by 9% every year (Donald 2004). Palm oil now makes up about 21% of the world s production of
edible oils and fats, second only to soybean oil. The oil is used in the manufacture of cooking oil,
margarine, soap and cosmetics, and it has industrial uses. As a substitute for diesel, palm oil is less
suitable than other vegetable oils owing to its high viscosity, lower energy density and high ash
point (Agrawal 2007). However, oil palm gives high yields at low prices, and hence is likely to be
important in meeting biofuel demand (Carter et al. 2007; Koh 2007).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

87

88

Specialization in one or a select number of
crop or animal species has reduced agricultural
biodiversity, affecting ecosystem services
and human health (Frison et al. 2011). The
introduction of invasive alien species can also
have negative impacts on biodiversity, terrestrial
and aquatic agriculture, and related provisioning
and regulating ecosystem services (Pejchar and
Mooney 2009). As discussed in the chapter on
freshwater, these impacts extend to human health.
These trends can also aﬀect the diversity of foods
being produced for human consumption and alter
agro-ecological processes (Kremen and Miles 2012
and references therein). Intercropping of species
and agroforestry practices (the maintenance of
perennials in ﬁelds) have been shown to enhance
above- and below-ground associated biodiversity,
soil quality, water-holding capacity, weed control,
disease and pest control, pollination, carbon
sequestration, and resilience to droughts and
hurricanes (reviewed in Kremen and Siles 2012).

and we will need genetic diversity to adapt to these
changing conditions.

There is also concern that industrialized farming
systems are vulnerable to the same disease risks as
crop monocultures. The level of genetic diversity
in livestock breeds has fallen dramatically over the
past century as a result of intense selection. In
cattle, the Holstein breed dominates production
in the West and intensive sire selection is leading
to rapid inbreeding rates with a few sons of
sires and grandsires dominating US populations
(Holstein Assoc. USA 1986). Over the past 100
years, approximately 28% of livestock breeds
have become rare, endangered or extinct globally
(Notter 1999). This is particularly worrisome
as genetic diversity is required to meet current
production needs in various environments, to
allow sustained genetic improvement, and to
facilitate rapid adaptation to changing breeding
objectives (Notter 1999). Modern agricultural
production systems decouple agriculture from
the surrounding environment, controlling feed,
water, temperature and disease in large industrial
complexes, selecting for animals with very little
environmental tolerance. In the interim, we
will lose breeds with a range of environmental
tolerances (Tisdell 2003). As climate change
progresses, the future will not look like the present

Alternative approaches to ensuring sufficient
production to meet human needs in
environmentally safe ways are broadly based
on enhancing the use of biological processes
in agriculture. There are many alternative
approaches and concepts variously identiﬁed as
agroecology, ecological intensiﬁcation or, more
generally, as an ecological approach to agricultural
production (Altieri et al. 1995; De Schutter
2010; FAO/PAR 2011). Ecological approaches
are characterized by minimal disturbance of the
ecosystem, plant nutrition from organic and
non-organic sources, and the use of both natural
and managed biodiversity to produce food, raw
materials and other ecosystem services. This way,
crop production not only sustains the health of
farmland already in use, but can also regenerate
land left in poor condition by past misuse (FAO
2011). This approach to agricultural production
emphasizes the importance of maintaining natural
ecosystem services and function in agricultural
production systems rather than replacing them
with external inputs.

3.6 Alternative production pathways
The negative effects of modern intensive
agriculture on the environment and human health,
together with concerns about the unsustainable
nature of many of the practices (e.g. with regard
to water and phosphate use), the continuing
failure to deal with malnutrition and the need to
confront the challenges of climate change, have led
to the identiﬁcation of an increasing number of
alternative approaches to agricultural production
(e.g. Baulcombe et al. 2009; PAR/FAO 2011; FAO
2011; de Schutter 2010). The assessment that
the food systems in place are no longer “ﬁt for
purpose” has been reﬂected in growing consumer
concerns and the growth of civil society groups
concerned about securing healthy and safe food
production (Rosin et al. 2012).

There are a wide range of ecologically based options
including conservation agriculture (Kassam et al.
2009), organic agriculture (Badgley et al. 2007),

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

integrated pest management (IPM), integrated
plant nutrition systems, ecoagriculture (Scherr
and McNeely 2007), sustainable crop production
intensification (FAO 2009) and agroecology
(Wezel et al. 2009). Many of these have already
been deployed in large production areas although
they are yet to be universally accepted or adopted,
and each has its own community of advocates and
detractors.
Ecological approaches to agricultural
intensiﬁcation make increased use of agricultural
biodiversity and are expected to create conditions
that will support the maintenance of biodiversity
as a whole and improve human health, either
directly or indirectly. Some of the features of
such approaches with respect to agricultural
biodiversity and to human health are illustrated
in the section that follows.

4. Food production, food security
and human health
4.1 Agricultural biodiversity and food
production
Many barriers and challenges continue to
hinder the optimum utilization and sustainable
management of agricultural biodiversity, which
have caused it to be relegated to a minor role
in agriculture and health (Hunter and Fanzo
2013). This neglect of agricultural biodiversity
continues to come at a great cost to national
health-care budgets, the global environment
and society in general (see chapter on nutrition).
Globalization and the simpliﬁcation of agriculture,
population increase and urbanization, along with
public policies that continue to provide perverse
incentives for unsustainable food production,
have changed patterns of food production and
consumption in ways that profoundly affect
ecosystems and human diets, and have led to
increasingly dysfunctional food systems. Highinput industrial agriculture and long-distance
transport increase the availability and aﬀordability
of reﬁned carbohydrates and fats, leading to an
overall simpliﬁcation of diets and reliance on a
limited number of energy-rich foods (Figure 1).
This has also resulted in a considerable disconnect

between diet and local food sources, a situation
that threatens the continued existence of valuable
agricultural biodiversity and the knowledge
associated with it.
The development of widely adapted, highly
uniform crop and livestock varieties has
played a major part in the homogenization
of agriculture. Such varieties or breeds can be
grown and produced over very wide areas (many
millions of hectares) owing partly to their broad
adaptation and partly to the homogenization
of agricultural production systems that can be
achieved through chemical inputs and irrigation.
The use of genetic modiﬁcation and production
of genetically modiﬁed organisms (GMOs) has
added a dimension that has been the subject of
substantial controversy (Letourneau and Burrows
2010; Costa-Font et al. 2010). The implications
for human health of the widespread adoption of
commercialized edible GMOs, including soy, maize
and oilseed rape, is also disputed (summarized in
De Vendômois et al. 2010 and references therein;
Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009). Certainly some
of the practices associated with their use may have
undesirable side-eﬀects such as the widescale use
of herbicides. However, others have suggested
that GMO crop varieties reduce pesticide use and
result in positive health beneﬁts (Phipps and Park
2002). There are also concerns with respect to the
unplanned spread of novel genes into wild crop
relatives or to traditional varieties, especially in
centres of crop diversity (Stewart et al. 2003).
This unplanned spread could have signiﬁcant
negative consequences for existing patterns of
within-species diversity, changing ﬁtness levels
of populations and varieties, and hence their
potential long-term survival and evolution.
Shifts to monoculture or low diversity cropping
systems in turn have led to the homogenization
of global food production and the loss of regional
and endemic crop types, while the adoption of
global staple crops is changing people diet as
many diets shift towards common starchy energydense foods crops in place of traditional crops or
varieties (Padulosi et al. 2002; Malaza and Howard
2003; Adoukonou-Sagbadja et al. 2006; Smale et
al. 2009). Such shifts have led to a global trend

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

89

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ The limited use of plant species diversity in agriculture

Source: FAO, 1995

of increased quantities of food calories, proteins
and fat for human consumption, but they are
increasingly sourced from a handful of energydense foods (Khoury et al. 2014). Consequently,
national food supplies worldwide became more
alike in composition, correlated with an increased
supply of several globally important cereal and
oil crops, and a decline of other cereal, oil and
starchy root species. The increase in homogeneity
worldwide portends the establishment of a global
standard food supply, which is relatively speciesrich with regard to measured crops at the national
level, but species-poor globally (Khoury et al.
2014).
Agricultural homogenization not only affects
diets, but potentially the resilience of global food
systems. Such cropping patterns make both local
and global production landscapes vulnerable to
wide sweeping pest and disease outbreaks. As
landscapes become increasingly similar in the
crop composition, pests and pathogens, including
those that are invasive, have increasingly large
and connected cropland areas to infect and infest
– both through natural dispersal and through
increasingly integrated transportation and trade
pathways. This can be seen in the recent epidemics
of virulent yellow wheat rust, Puccinia striiformis
f. sp. tritici that have appeared in new areas, e.g.
eastern USA (Chen 2005), South Africa (Boshoﬀ

90

et al. 2002) and Western Australia (Wellings et
al. 2003), as well as Central and northern Europe
(Flath and Barthel 2002; Hovmoller and Justesen
2007). The vast and expansive spread of diseases
aﬀecting a small number of globally important
crops can have important consequences for both
local and global food supplies and human health
(Hovmoller et al. 2008).
Such generalizations (Figure 1) mask the diversity
of food crops, animal breeds, ﬁsh populations
and genetic diversity that is still maintained
and further developed by small-scale farmers,
pastoralists and ﬁsherfolk worldwide, and which is
available and produced in many of the world’s food
production systems. Crop and livestock production
systems that are often the target of agricultural
development are in reality often elements of a
larger landscape that comprises a broad range of
wild, weedy and feral species that not only play
critical roles in securing food production and
ecosystem function but which may also contribute
signiﬁcantly to human diets, food security and
health, such as many of the wild edible species
found in and around aquatic agricultural systems
or forests. Wildlife is consumed as bushmeat,
and wild leafy and fruit species, and other edible
species such as insects and mushrooms found in
and around agricultural ﬁelds play an important
role in feeding populations in many parts of

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

the world (PAR/FAO 2011). Despite potential
health beneﬁts of bushmeat consumption, as
the nutrition chapter also indicates, health risks
associated with its unsafe handling, storage
and growing illegal trade must also be carefully
considered (see also the chapter on nutrition
in this volume). Agricultural intensiﬁcation has
also often upset the balance maintained by rural
communities between sustainably managed
natural areas and farmed areas, leading not
only to reductions in uncultivated areas but also
overexploitation of the resources that remain.

å.1.1 %ixed farEin? ;rop and Ísh
and a?roforestrQ x in;reasin? spe;ies
diNersitQ
Diverse production systems with a number of
different productive components themselves
confer multiple beneﬁts. The forms that these
can take are many and varied. For example, home
gardens, which are characterized by high levels
of species diversity in a relatively small space,
are highly productive with multiple livelihood,
health and biodiversity maintenance beneﬁts
(Galuzzi et al. 2010; Box 7 on home gardens).
Diversity in livestock production has been shown
to confer beneﬁts through improved provision of
nutrients, overall productivity, system resilience
and income (Morton, 2007). The aquatic ricebased agroecosystems of South and South-East

Asia improve ecosystem function, nutrition
and income in many diﬀerent farming systems
(Halwart 1998; Pullin and White 2011; see
also Box 2). Integrating trees into agricultural
environments helps to realize the full potential
of agroforestry ecosystem function and provides
marketable products (Garrity et al. 2010).
All alternative approaches to agricultural
intensification based on increasing chemical
inputs and uniformity of production systems
involve increased use of agricultural biodiversity.
This increased use takes two forms: (1) the use of
diﬀerent materials adapted to diﬀerent agronomic
practices and reduced inputs, and (2) the use of
increased diversity at ecosystem, species and
genetic levels (or at landscape, farm and ﬁeld
scales) (PAR/FAO, 2011), i.e. the use of more
species, crop varieties, livestock breeds and wild
populations. As De Schutter (2010) noted in his
report to the UN Secretary General on the role of
agroecology in food security, “These approaches
involve the maintenance or introduction of
agricultural biodiversity (diversity of crops,
livestock, agroforestry, ﬁsh, pollinators, insects,
soil biota and other components that occur in
and around production systems) to achieve the
desired results in sustainability and productivity.”
It has been estimated that traditional agricultural
landscapes that are complex and rich in agricultural
biodiversity still provide as much as 20% of the

Box 7: Home gardens
Home gardens are estimated to support nearly 1 billion people in the tropics and contain remarkable
diversity of food and other utilitarian species – up to a hundred or more species per garden – and
o er great potential for improving household food security and alleviating micronutrient de ciencies
(Heywood 2013). E orts to promote nutritious biodiversity through home gardens have been the
target of food security and nutrition interventions in many countries (Nielsen et al. 2013; Pudasaini
et al. 2013), and may also provide animal products such as chickens, eggs and livestock as in the
case of the homestead gardens promoted by Helen Keller International. Some studies have found
that a child s nutritional status is associated with the presence of a home garden and that the
garden s biodiversity, rather than its size, is the most important factor ( ones et al. 2005). In addition
to enhancing food security and nutrition, the presence of home gardens in highly populated areas
creates a pleasant and aesthetically pleasing environment, which may have broader health bene ts,
including mental health bene ts, as well (Pushpakumara et al. 2012).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

91

world’s food supply (Heywood 2013). This may
be a signiﬁcant underestimate given that it has
also been estimated that small-scale producers
produce most of the world’s food (Pretty and
Barucha 2014).

4.2 Global food security, biodiversity
and human health
With the growing demand of an expected 9 billion
people by 2050, the world still faces tremendous
challenges in securing adequate food that is
healthy, safe and of high nutritional quality for all,
and doing so in an equitable and environmentally
sustainable manner (Pinstrup-Andersen 2009;
Godfray et al. 2010; Tilman et al. 2011; Foley
et al. 2011). Climate change, ecosystems and
biodiversity under stress, increasing urbanization,
social conflict and extreme poverty all make
attaining this challenge diﬃcult.
Despite progress in feeding a growing population,
we still live in a world with a highly dysfunctional,
and inequitable, food system, where there has
been a failure to achieve global food security, in
which we have been unable to feed a signiﬁcant
part of humanity adequately, and which
continues to contribute to environmental and
health problems, high species extinction rates,
loss of genetic diversity, and land and ecosystem
degradation (Rosin et al. 2012). One major issue
is the apparent continuing lack of political will and
moral imperative (Horrigan et al. 2002). This is
reﬂected in such continuing problems as the scale
of food waste. Of the total food produced, about
30% is lost through post-harvest losses on farms
or in the process of marketing, distribution and
consumption (Lundqvist 2008). There is clearly
signiﬁcant potential to improve the availability of
food and reduce hunger through reducing these
losses. In addition to the continued problems of
hunger, micronutrient deﬁciencies undermine the
growth and development, health and productivity
of over 2 billion people (Micronutrient Initiative

2009). At the same time, according to recent
estimates, over 2 billion people worldwide are
overweight or obese (Ng et al. 2014).
We face a major global problem associated with
the replacement of foods derived from biodiversity
with high nutritional significance by globally
marketed foods that are higher in energy but less
dense in nutrients and other functional factors
that often confer some degree of protection
against disease. The result is an emerging “double
burden”⁵ of malnutrition and “hidden hunger”⁶
in developing countries. Up to half a million
vitamin A-deﬁcient children go blind every year,
half of them dying within a year of losing their
sight; and iron deﬁciency is damaging the mental
development of 40–60% of children in developing
countries. The estimated cost of undernutrition
to potential economic development is between
US$ 20 and 30 billion annually (Shetty 2010, see
also Chapter on nutrition within this volume).⁷
The Declaration of the World Summit on Food
Security (FAO 2009) addresses the issue of
investments in agriculture highlighting that
eﬀorts should focus more on sustainability by
supporting sustainable agricultural production
and practices aimed at conservation and improved
use of the natural resource base and protection of
the environment and enhanced use of ecosystem
services. Some of the key aspects of improving
food security identified by the World Food
Summit where agricultural biodiversity is relevant
are listed in Box 8 (FAO/PAR, 2011).

å.ã.1 liEate ;han?e food se;uritQ and
huEan health
FAO estimates that food production over the next
40 years will need to increase by about 70% in order
to cope with increasing population and dietary
demands for more animal-sourced foods. Over
the same time frame, climate change is expected
to cause signiﬁcant reductions in not only crop

⁵ The Double burden of undernutrition and overnutrition.
⁶ Hidden hunger – a lack of essential vitamins and minerals often results in “hidden hunger” where the signs of malnutrition
and hunger are less visible in the immediate sense. See also chapter on nutrition in this volume.
⁷ Shetty P. (2010) The challenge of improving nutrition: fact and ﬁgures. SciDevNet. http://www.scidev.net/en/health/thechallenge-of-improving-nutrition/features/the-challenge-of-improving-nutrition-facts-and-ﬁgures-1.html

92

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

%R[.H\DVSHFWVRILPSURYLQJIRRGVHFXULW\LGHQWLƩHGE\WKH:RUOG)RRG6XPPLW
Declaration which particularly involve agricultural biodiversity
• Increase production including through access to improved seed and inputs; reduce pre- and postharvest losses; pay special attention to smallholders.
• Implement sustainable practices, including responsible sheries, improved resource use,
protection of the environment, conservation of the natural resource base and enhanced use of
ecosystem services.
• Ensure better management of the biodiversity associated with food and agriculture; support the
conservation of and access to genetic resources, and fair and equitable sharing of the bene ts
arising from their use.
• Recognize that increasing agricultural productivity is the main way to meet the increasing
demand for food, given the constraints on expanding the amount of land and water used for food
production.
• Mobilize the resources needed to increase productivity, including research, and the review,
approval and adoption of biotechnology and other new technologies.
• Enable all farmers, particularly women and smallholder farmers from countries most vulnerable to
climate change, to adapt to, and mitigate the impact of, climate change.
• Support national, regional and international programmes that contribute to improved food safety
and animal and plant health.
• Encourage the consumption of foods, particularly those available locally, which contribute to
diversi ed and balanced diets.
• Address the challenges and opportunities posed by biofuels.
Reference: FAO/PAR 2011

production but also the nutritional content of
foods, particularly in respect of production of C3
grains and legumes, which provide a large portion
of the global population with their primary source
of iron and zinc. Increasing CO2 levels will lead
to reductions ranging between 5% and 10% in
the iron and zinc content of the edible portion
of these crops, possibly increasing the burden of
disease for these deﬁciencies that already cause a
loss of 63 million life-years annually (Myers et al.
2014). Climate change is also expected to impact
heavily on ﬁsh and livestock resources. Livestock

in particular will be impacted, especially in arid
and semi-arid regions, including eﬀects on pasture
species composition and forage quality. Further,
increasingly frequent and severe pest and disease
attacks are expected. Bebber et al. (2013) highlight
poleward movements of pests and pathogens to
new areas from 1960 onwards. While soil-borne
pathogens and diseases are likely to be more
of a problem under increasing temperatures
(Jaggard et al. 2010), Tirado et al. (2010) and
Lake et al. (2012) also highlight the likelihood of
climate change impacts on food contamination

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

93

and foodborne diseases through the increased
incidence of existing pathogens or the emergence
of new pathogens. The Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change⁸
concluded that climate change is aﬀecting all
aspects of food security and agriculture, and that
impacts on crop yields are already evident across
several regions of the world.
Agricultural biodiversity, including utilization,
and maintenance of plant genetic resources
for crop improvement and diversification, is
an important strategy in dealing with ongoing
climate change and food security (FAO 2015). In
addition to their nutritional potential, Foley et
al. (2011) highlight important opportunities to
improve crop yield and resilience, by improving
the myriad neglected and underutilized species
and conserving crop diversity as well as crop wild
relatives. Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea)
is well known for its drought tolerance and ability
to grow in harsh and marginal environments, as
are a number of minor millets commonly grown
in South Asia. Ca˜nihua (Chenopodium pallidicaule),
an underutilized Andean grain, has signiﬁcant
frost tolerance, while the perennial seabuckthorn
(Hippophaerhamnoides) has considerable tolerance
to abiotic stresses like frost and cold, assumed to
be associated with the high levels of ascorbic acid
and myo-inositol it contains (Padulosi et al. 2011;
Yadav et al. 2015).

Crop wild relatives represent one of our most
precious resources in trying to deal with climate
change, while at the same time improving the
nutritional quality of crops and food (Hunter and
Heywood 2011). As well as containing genetic
traits for enhanced nutritional quality, they
also have novel pest resistance and tolerance to
heat, drought and salinity, among other traits
(Godfray et al. 2010; Hunter and Heywood 2011;
Hodgkin and Bordoni 2012). Crop wild relatives
have already provided many useful genes for crop
improvement, which have been introduced to
improve varieties through conventional breeding
techniques in crops as diverse as wheat, potato,
tomato and lettuce (Hajjar and Hodgkin, 2007).
However, crop wild relatives, as well as other
genetic diversity, cannot be taken for granted and
they are currently under threat from changing
climate (Jarvis et al. 2008; Lira et al. 2008; Hunter
and Heywood, 2011).
Negative impacts on crop yields or when crops fail
as a result of climate change may mean a greater
role for wild food species for food security and
nutrition in the future. Yet climate change is also
likely to negatively impact on wild edible species
themselves. A recent study (Carr et al. 2013) of
wild plant and animal species of the Albertine
Rift region of East and Central Africa combined
climate change vulnerability and use assessments
to identify those species utilized by communities

Box 9. Agro-ecological resilience after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua
In October 1998, Hurricane Mitch hit Central America, causing damage worth at least US 6.7 billion.
Over 10000 people died and 3 million were displaced or left homeless. In Nicaragua, a comparative
study was carried out using participatory approaches, which involved farmers and local NGOs,
on the levels of resistance to the hurricane of “sustainable” farms using a variety of sustainable
land management practices, and neighbouring “conventional” farms that lacked those practices.
On average, agro-ecological plots on sustainable farms had more topsoil, higher eld moisture,
less erosion and lower economic losses after the hurricane than the plots on conventional farms.
The di erences in favour of agro-ecological plots tended to increase with increasing levels of
storm intensity, increasing slope and years under agro-ecological practices, though the patterns of
resistance suggested complex interactions and thresholds.
(Holt-Gimenez 2002. See also the Chapter on disaster risk reduction in this volume)

⁸ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

94

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

most likely to be negatively impacted by climate
change. The study found that 14 amphibians (13%
of those assessed), 17 birds (2%), 19 freshwater
ﬁsh (3%), 24 mammals (7%), 33 plants (36%)
and 25 reptiles (15%) of known importance for
use, including food, were among those at greatest
vulnerability to climate change impacts. For
these reasons, better knowledge of how wild food
species are likely to be impacted by climate change
will be critical for both biodiversity conservation
and developing sustainable use and livelihood
strategies.
More biodiversity-friendly crop and food
production mitigation strategies that might
contribute to reduced methane and nitrous
oxide emissions could include improved soil
management practices, such as the enhanced
use of mulching, cover cropping, conservation
agriculture, more efficient N utilization, as
well as improved rice cultivation and manure
management practices (Reynolds and Ortiz
2010; Cribb 2010). Among other things, such
strategies will require new crop varieties, including
breeding of varieties with reduced carbon dioxide
and nitrous oxide emissions, different crop
combinations, and modiﬁed management systems
and agronomic practices (Hodgkin and Bordoni
2012; Reynolds and Ortiz 2010).

5. Conclusions
The increase in food production achieved over
the past decades has been accompanied by
significant losses in agricultural biodiversity,
as production systems (crop and animal) have
become more uniform and dependent on
externally derived chemical inputs. The loss of
agricultural biodiversity has been associated with
reductions in ecosystem service provision, often
accompanied by negative impacts on human
health. It is clear that agricultural biodiversity
can make signiﬁcant contributions to improving
food security, nutrition and human health, and
will play an essential role in achieving sustainable
food production and improving the productivity
needed to meet the challenges of climate change.
The chapter points to a number of areas of work
that can help to improve the contribution of

agricultural biodiversity to food security and
human health. These are listed below:
1. There are still signiﬁcant knowledge gaps in
relation to the optimum use and deployment of
agricultural biodiversity in production systems.
The ways in which agricultural biodiversity can
improve ecosystem-regulating and-supporting
services is still poorly understood in terms of how
to achieve real beneﬁts in diﬀerent production
systems. This will involve a substantial programme
of integrated transdisciplinary research, which
fully involves producers, and links the production
of improved crop and livestock materials to the
adoption of agronomic practices that support
biological functions in production systems.
2. The importance of diversity-rich production
systems and diversiﬁcation is widely recognized
in respect of their contribution to food security,
sustainability, adaptation to change and human
health. However, the ways in which such
approaches can be adopted with direct beneﬁts
to producers who are committed to uniform
non-diverse approaches has not been clearly
established. This will involve taking account
of biological, social, economic and political
dimensions, and of recognizing both producer and
consumer concerns.
3. Even when practices that provide food security,
health and diversity beneﬁts have been identiﬁed
(such as alternatives to the use of pesticides or of
reducing the pollination deﬁcit through improved
pollinator diversity), there remain economic,
policy and other barriers to the adoption of such
practices, especially at the national level. These
need to be identiﬁed and alternatives adopted. It
will be especially important to investigate ways
in which the full economic value of the use of
agricultural biodiversity can be measured and
rewarded.
4. A number of international policies and
instruments have been developed to take account
of the importance of agricultural biodiversity.
However, there remain signiﬁcant challenges in
achieving full recognition of its importance in, for

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

95

example, climate change adaptation agendas⁹ and
the global food security debates of the Committee
on World Food Security (CFS). A key objective of
international policy eﬀorts should be to ensure the
enhanced availability of agricultural biodiversity
to users.

6. The growing concerns of consumers about
food production approaches and the demand for
environmentally friendly approaches that provide
adequate rewards for rural communities and safe
food provide important entry points for exploring
the contributions that agricultural biodiversity can
make to these wider social objectives.

BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL

5. Sustainable development goals and targets, and
the post-2015 Development Agenda provide an
important global entry point to better recognition
of the ways in which agricultural biodiversity
and health co-beneﬁts can be maximized. The
goals of ending hunger, malnutrition, increasing
agricultural productivity and incomes, ensuring

sustainable and resilient food production systems,
and maintaining genetic diversity provide a
framework for developing a compelling agenda
on the value of the improved use of agricultural
biodiversity.

⁹ The recent adoption of guidelines on the integration of genetic diversity in climate change adaptation planning by the FAO
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is a beneﬁcial development.

96

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

RAWPIXEL LTD

6. Biodiversity and Nutrition
1. Introduction
Malnutrition remains one of the greatest global
health challenges we face and women and children
are its most visible and vulnerable victims.
Agricultural production is theoretically able to
feed the world’s population in terms of calories
(FAOSTAT, 2014), yet it is estimated that half
the world’s population still suﬀers from one or
more forms of malnutrition. In all its forms,
malnutrition is closely linked to disease – as both
a cause and eﬀect  – and it is the single largest
contributor to the global burden of disease (WHO
2012a).
Countries are increasingly facing complex multiple
burdens of malnutrition, with undernutrition
and micronutrient deﬁciencies coexisting with
overweight and obesity in many parts of the
world, often even within the same population or
family (Shrimpton 2013). Based on data released
in 2014, 161 million children under the age of ﬁve
are estimated to be stunted, almost 1.5 billion
people are estimated to be overweight, over
600 million to be obese (Ng et al. 2014) and two
billion are estimated to be deﬁcient in one or more
micronutrients, a phenomenon referred to by
some as “hidden hunger”. These conditions all have
severe consequences for survival, for morbidity,
and for the ability of individuals, the economy
and society to thrive (IFPRI 2014). Nutrient

deﬁciencies alone can lead to several global health
and development challenges, impaired intellectual
and psychomotor development, reduced physical
growth, and a range of other problems. It has also
been found to increase morbidity from infectious
diseases in infants and young children (see
Muthayya et al. 2013 and references therein).
In recent years, the direct and indirect dependence
and impact of human nutrition on biodiversity
has been increasingly acknowledged by the
health (WHO 2012b; UN SCN 2013 and ICN2),
agriculture (FAO 2013a) and environment sectors
(UNEP 2012; CBD 2014). These activities have
included landmark research eﬀorts, innovative
development programmes and projects, policy
initiatives, and advocacy campaigns.
Biodiversity is a key source of food diversity
and provides a natural richness of nutrients
(macronutrients such as carbohydrates, proteins
and fats, and micronutrients [vitamins and
minerals] and bioactive non-nutrients for healthy
human diets (Blasbalg et al. 2011; Fanzo et al.
2013). In addition, biodiversity also underpins
critical supporting ecosystem services, such as
pollination and soil fertility, essential to food
production, both in terms of quantity and quality.
In the ﬁeld of nutrition, food is seldom dealt with
independently of the nutrients it contains, the

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

97

whole diet of which it is a part and the ecosystems
it is derived from. Taking a whole diet approach
enables the use of diﬀerent combinations of diverse
foods, and their many interactions, to improve
dietary quality and meet nutritional needs. It also
takes into account local knowledge – threatened
in many parts of the world (Sujarwo et al. 2014) –
and cultural acceptability and culinary traditions.
Biodiversity for human nutrition therefore
includes the diversity of plants, animals and
other organisms used in food systems, covering
the genetic resources within and between species,
and provided by ecosystems. In nutrition science,
however, the diversity of diets covers mostly the
inter-species biodiversity, and the intra-species
biodiversity is a still underexplored dimension
from a nutritional perspective.
Despite the increased recognition of the potential
of biodiversity for nutrition, national global food
supplies have become more homogeneous in
composition, being largely dependent on a few
global crops (Khoury et al. 2014).

Agricultural programmes and policies often focus
on increasing the production of a few staple crops,
and their success is measured in terms of the food
quantity or dietary energy supply. Ample quantity
does not necessarily ensure appropriate nutritional
quality, with staple crops unable to provide the
diversity and adequate amounts of nutrients to
meet human requirements, especially muchneeded micronutrients. This has led to numerous
calls demanding new approaches to agriculture for
improved nutrition outcomes, often referred to
as “nutrition-sensitive agriculture” (Ag2Nut CoP,
2013; Turner et al, 2103; McDermott et al. 2015).
Notwithstanding the productivity successes
achieved in the agricultural sector in the past
several decades, it is becoming increasingly
clear that current methods and levels of food
production and consumption are not sustainable,
(FAO 2013b) and that ﬁnite natural resources and
genetic diversity are being corroded or lost in the
process. A reduction in biodiversity is a prime
example (Toledo and Burlingame 2006; Wahlqvist
and Specht 1998).

Global malnutrition
ǢǭǜǫǣɻGlobal malnutrition

At the time of going to press the global ﬁgure of the number of people undernourished globally was estimated at 795 million (SOFI 2015) http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf

98

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

In view of these trends, monitoring and ensuring
biological diversity in global food systems for
nutrition and other outcomes is increasingly
important and intimately tied to the underlying
objectives of the post-2015 Development Agenda
(see also Section 11 in this chapter as well as Part
III chapters in this volume).
This chapter provides an overview of our
knowledge on food composition and the diversity
of food production systems. It also examines
the contribution of wild foods and traditional
food systems and cultures to dietary diversity
and nutrition as well as the rising trend known
as nutrition transition and Noncommunicable
diseases (NCDs). The chapter will further discuss
examples of initiatives for biodiversity and
nutrition, including in the context of urbanization.
Finally, relevant global policy initiatives and future
directions relevant to the post-2015 Development
Agenda are explored.

2. Biodiversity and food
composition
Food composition, i.e. the analysis of nutrients
and other bioactive components in food, was
traditionally the domain of the agriculture
sector, with FAO taking an early leadership role
as early as the 1950s, and the US Department of
Agriculture developing the single largest national
food composition database. In recent decades,
the health and nutrition sectors have become the
main users of food composition data in studies
exploring the relationship between nutrient or
dietary intake and diseases.
Given the inherent difficulties in collecting
information about people’s diets, many national
dietary surveys have recorded food intake at
a very aggregated level, sometimes using the
common name of the species (e.g. spinach) without
specifying genetic variety, sometimes as a food
type without specifying species (e.g. leafy greens),
and sometimes simply as a broad category with no
indication of the food itself (e.g. vegetable).
The goal of food composition to date has been
to provide nutrient data at that same aggregate

level, and strive for “year-round, nation-wide
mean values”, with all compositional diﬀerences
related to agro-ecological zone, seasonality and,
most signiﬁcantly, biodiversity being obscured.
This has been the lamentable trend, despite
knowledge among food composition professionals
that nutrient content diﬀerences among varieties
of the same species can be greater than the
diﬀerences between species.
The scientific literature reports significant
intraspeciﬁc diﬀerences in the nutrient content
of most plant-source foods (FAO/INFOODS,
2013a). Signiﬁcant nutrient content diﬀerences
in meat and milk among diﬀerent breeds of the
same animal species have also been documented
(Medhammar et al. 2012; Barnes et al. 2012;
Hoﬀmann and Baumung 2013). The diﬀerences
are statistically signiﬁcant, and more importantly,
nutritionally signiﬁcant, with 1000 and morefold differences documented. For example,
consumption of 200 g of rice per day can
represent less than 25% or more than 65% of
the recommended daily intake (RDI) of protein,
depending on the variety consumed (Kennedy
and Burlingame 2003). One apricot variety can
provide less than 1% or more than 200% of the
RDI for vitamin A. Variety-speciﬁc diﬀerences
can represent the diﬀerence between nutrient
deﬁciencies and nutrient adequacy in populations
and individuals (Lutaladio et al. 2010).
Many countries, such as Bangladesh with its
diversity of inland water bodies and ecosystems,
are rich in ﬁsh biodiversity (see Box 2 of the
agricultural biodiversity chapter). Freshwater
aquaculture is also rapidly growing with many
households now having access to a pond. Fish,
especially small indigenous species, are an
irreplaceable rich source of food in the diets of
millions. They contain essential, highly bioavailable
nutrients, including high-quality protein, essential
fatty acids and micronutrients. Some, such as
hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha), have a high fat content
and high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Common small indigenous species such as mola
(Amblypharyngodon mola), chanda (Parambassis
baculis), dhela (Rohtee cotio) and darkina (Esomus
danricus) also have a high content of vitamin

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

99

A as the eyes and gut are consumed. Because
many small indigenous species are eaten whole,
including bones and head, they can also represent
a very rich source of highly bioavailable calcium,
along with high iron and zinc content. The edible
parts of larger cultured ﬁsh such as silver carp
(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus) and panga (Pterogymnus laniarius) do not
contain vitamin A, iron or zinc, and as the bones
of large ﬁsh are discarded as plate waste, they do
not contribute to calcium intake (Thilsted 2013).
Several studies illustrate well the importance
of understanding the nutrient composition of
biodiversity. For example, in the latter part of
the twentieth century, vitamin A deﬁciency was
identiﬁed as a serious public health problem
among many Paciﬁc Island nations, with over 50%
of children manifesting stunting, night blindness,
Bitot spots, xerophthalmia causing blindness,
and severe repeated respiratory infections (see
Box 6 ). Despite the fact that this was attributed
to decreased consumption of traditional, local
vitamin A-rich foods, interventions promoted
since the 1980s were fortiﬁcation of margarine and
distribution of vitamin A capsules (Schaumberg et
al. 1995). Food composition research in the Paciﬁc
later revealed that local varieties of familiar species
were often superior in their nutrient content to
the commonly consumed varieties that dominated
the marketplace (Englberger and Johnson 2013,
Table 1).
In a study by Huang and co-workers (1999), the
nutrient content of diﬀerent variety of sweet
potato was analysed, showing dramatic varietyspeciﬁc diﬀerences, with high-carotenoid varieties
containing 65 times more β-carotene than the lowcarotenoid varieties. The pro-vitamin A carotenoid
content of some local banana varieties was more
than 8000 μg per 100 g, compared to the common
Cavendish variety with about 25 micrograms per
100 grams (Englberger et al. 2003a, b). After
the publication of data on the nutrient richness
of local foods in Paciﬁc Island countries (see
Table 1), it was clear that agricultural biodiversity
could provide more sustainable and culturally
acceptable solutions to several of the problems
of malnutrition in the region (Englberger et

al. 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2006, 2008, 2009;
Kuhnlein et al. 2009, 2013; Burlingame and
Toledo 2006; Rubiang-Yalambing et al. 2014).
As more and better data become available, food
biodiversity, covering thousands of varieties of
fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes, animal
species and breeds, edible insects and fungi, is
being recognized for its high nutritional value
and great potential for improving the nutritional
status of local communities. Furthermore, many
varieties of aibika (Abelmoschus manihot L.)
are consumed in the Paciﬁc region as a common
leafy vegetable particularly in Papua New Guinea
(PNG) where a recent study (Rubiang-Yalumbing
et al. 2014) has highlighted its high nutritional
value and potential for improving the nutritional
status of local communities. This study has
also highlighted genotype and environment
interactions that significantly influence the
micronutrient concentrations of even the same
accessions from year to year, even when planted
in the same area.
The selective specialization in a smaller number
of crops and crop genotypes has made some crops
less resilient to diseases and has limited the range
of available nutrients. Decades of research shows
that while yields of staple crops such as maize,
wheat and rice are increasing, their nutritional
contents tend to be decreasing (Jarrell and Beverly
1981; Simmonds, 1995). Moreover, as highlighted
in the chapters on agricultural biodiversity and
climate change in this volume, climate change may
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence biodiversity resources, food
production and food contamination, including the
incidence of aﬂatoxins, with implications for food
security, diets and nutrition (Cotty and JaimeGarcia 2007; Tirado et al. 2013). Climate change
is also expected to cause signiﬁcant reductions
in the nutritional content of certain foods,
particularly C3 grains and legumes, which provide
a large portion of the global population with their
primary source of iron and zinc. Increasing CO2
concentrations may lead to reductions ranging
between 5% and 10% in the iron and zinc content
of the edible portion of these crops (Myers et al.
2014).

100 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 101

Musa spp

Karat

Oryza sativa

Pandanus tectorius

White

ellow

ellow

ellow: 4

ellow: 1

ellow/orange: 8

Orange: 15

Flesh colourƸ

na

310

868

2930

4486

2230

8508

β-carotene

na

50

142

2040

na

455

na

α-carotene

na

20

120

na

30

na

β-crypto-xanthin

0

345

939

4010

4486

2473

8508

β-carotene
equivalentsƹ

0

58

132

668

748

412

1418

REƺ

0

29

78

334

374

206

709

RAEƻ

0

5200

na

5630

na

4320

na

Total
carotenoidsƼ

Source: Englberger and ohnson, 2013

This includes estimates of identi ed and unidenti ed carotenoids level but is unrelated to vitamin A content.

Retinol activity equivalents (conversion factor 12:1 from β-carotene equivalents to RAE)

The estimated recommended dietary intake (RDI) for a non-pregnant, non-lactating female is 500 μg RE/day and for a child 1–3 years old is 400 μg/day (FAO/WHO 2002).

Retinol equivalents (conversion factor 6:1 from β-carotene equivalents to RE).

β-carotene equivalents: content of β-carotene plus half of α-carotene and β-cryptoxanthin.

Raw esh color was described visually and estimated using the DSM olk Color Fan, numbers ranging from 1 to 15 for increasing coloration of yellow and orange.

Notes: Analyses were conducted at di erent laboratories, see published papers. All used state-of-the art techniques, including high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Samples were as eaten: raw
ripe (banana, pandanus); cooked ripe (breadfruit) and cooked as mature (taro). All samples were composite samples: 3–6 fruits or corms per sample, collected from Pohnpei State, Federated States of Micronesia. Data are from: Englberger et al. 2009a (pandanus), Englberger et al. 2008 (giant swamp taro), Englberger et al. 2006 (banana), Englberger et al. 2003a (breadfruit). Imported food: rice: Dignan et al.
2004. Imported rice has now become a common staple food in Pohnpei.

na- not analysed * below detection limits

Rice, white or
brown

Imported food

Luarmwe

Pandanus

Mei Kole

Artocarpus
mariannensis

Cyrtosperma
merkusii

Mwahngin Wel

Breadfruit

Cyrtosperma
merkusii

Mwahng Tekatek
Weitahta

Giant swamp taro

Musa spp

Species

Utin Iap

Banana

Variety

Table 1: Carotenoid content of selected traditional staple food varieties compared to rice (μg/100 g edible portion) in Pohnpei, FSM

Food composition and food consumption
indicators for biodiversity (see Box 1) can help
track the extent to which food biodiversity is being
documented for the purposes of human nutrition.
While progress is being made in this area and
more data on the nutrient composition of food
biodiversity are required, enough evidence exists
to warrant actions to provide biodiversity-based
solutions to solve some of the persistent problems
of malnutrition (Burlingame et al. 2009).

3. Systems diversity and human
nutrition
A shared axiom of ecology and nutrition is that
diversity enhances the health and function of
complex biological systems (DeClerck et al. 2011;
DeClerck 2013; Khoury 2014).
A diverse diet should contain many diﬀerent foods
consumed in suﬃcient amounts. A healthy human
diet is composed of many hundreds of beneﬁcial
bioactive components, a small subset of which have
been characterized and identiﬁed as nutrients. A
varied diet is the only way to ensure adequate

Box 1. Food composition and food consumption indicators for biodiversity
Speci c indicators for biodiversity are needed to understand, quantify, and monitor the role of
biodiversity in human diets, and the impact of biodiversity-related nutrition interventions and
initiatives. Among relevant activities under the Cross-cutting Initiative and within the framework of
the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership, FAO, INFOODS and Bioversity International convened a series of
meetings and expert consultations to propose, develop and monitor nutrition indicators for biodiversity.
During two technical meetings, two nutrition indicators were developed: Indicator 1 on food
composition (FAO, 2008) and Indicator 2 on food consumption (FAO 2010).
Indicator 1 relates to the availability of compositional data, i.e. nutrients, bioactive non-nutrients, and
contaminants, on foods meeting the criteria of biodiversity. The criteria include food items reported
at the taxonomic level below the species level, along with wild, neglected and underutilized species.
In 2008, the baseline report counted 5519 foods for Indicator 1. In subsequent years, between 835
and 5186 foods were added annually (FAO/INFOODS 2013). Researchers worldwide are submitting
their data to the FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for Biodiversity (FAO/INFOODS 2013a),
which serves as an international repository of analytical data on biodiversity of su cient quality.
These data are freely available, widely disseminated, and frequently cited.
Indicator 2 refers to a count of the number of biodiverse foods reported in food consumption or
similar surveys (FAO 2010). In 2009, the baseline report counted 3,119 foods. In the two reporting
periods that followed, 1,827 and 1,375 foods were added. A secondary survey indicator was
developed as a count of the number of food consumption and similar surveys taking biodiversity into
consideration in their design and/or reporting, with at least one reported food meeting the criteria for
Indicator 2 (FAO/INFOODS 2013).
These indicators have proven useful in stimulating the collection and dissemination of biodiversity
data for food composition and consumption. They are also advocacy tools to policy-makers and
programme managers for e ectively raising awareness of the importance of biodiversity for nutrition
and providing documentation of the ever-increasing knowledge of biodiversity and human nutrition.
Reference: http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/food-biodiversity/it/ (accessed 5 March 2015)

102 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

intakes of these nutrients and related compounds.
Researchers use diﬀerent methods to determine
the adequacy of diets of individuals, households
and communities, including the simple and easy
to administer Diet Diversity Score (DDS), which is
deﬁned as the number of food groups consumed
by an individual or family over a certain time
period, mostly 24-hours. Many studies carried out
among diﬀerent age groups show that an increase
in individual DDS is related to increased nutrient
adequacy, health and micronutrient density of
diets of non-breastfed children, adolescents and
adults (Hatloy et al. 1998; Ruel et al. 2004; Steyn
et al. 2006; Kennedy et al. 2007; Mirmiran et al.
2004; Foote et al. 2004; Lobstein et al. 2015 and
references therein; Arimond and Ruel 2004; Kant
et al. 1993; Slattery et al. 1997; Levi et al. 1998)
and food security (Ruel 2003).
Similarly, in ecology, species diversity has been
shown to stimulate productivity, stability,
ecosystem services, and resilience in natural
(Cadotte et al. 2012; Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Hooper
et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2013; Hooper et al. 2012)
and agricultural ecosystems (Kremen and Miles
2012; Davis et al. 2012; Kirwan et al. 2007; Picasso
et al. 2008; Bonin and Tracy 2012; Mijatovic et al.
2013; Hajjar et al. 2008).
Community ecology has demonstrated that
increases in biodiversity can lead to increases
in plant community productivity when species
complement each other, or use resources
differently. Many studies of biodiversity and
ecosystem function have demonstrated that
there is much variance that cannot be explained
by species richness (DeClerck et al. 2011). For
example, does it matter that an ecosystem has
ﬁve species, or would it be more important that a
system has ﬁve diﬀerent functional groups? Is a
ﬁeld with maize, rice, wheat, sorghum, and millet
the equivalent of a ﬁeld with maize, beans, squash,
sweet potato and guava? Both have ﬁve species,
but the latter contains ﬁve functional distinct
species from a nutritional point of view in contrast
to the former where all of the species are from the
grass family, high in carbohydrates, but poor in
essential nutrients.

Though ecologists have focused increasingly on the
relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning, there has been little but increasing
focus on the capacity or role that ecosystems
play in providing the essential elements and
nutrients of the human diet, as proposed through
the concept of “eco-nutrition” (Deckelbaum
et al. 2006; DeClerck et al. 2011). While diet
diversity has long been recognized as important
for adequate nutrient intake and human health,
the concept of nutritional diversity has yet to
be integrated into planning, assessments, and
policies and programmes of agricultural and food
systems.
In the past, food-based interventions have been
mostly oriented toward single nutrients (Frison et
al. 2006). This may in part be attributed to a lack
of knowledge in earlier years of the interactions
among nutrients in human physiology and
metabolism. From various recommendations
for high-protein diets (Brock et al. 1955) and
later for high-carbohydrate diets (McLaren 1966;
McLaren 1974) to more recent eﬀorts directed at
the elimination of micronutrient deﬁciencies (UN
committee on nutrition, 2000; Ruel and Levin
2002), the attention has generally concentrated
on single nutrient approaches. The introduction
of crops focusing on single-nutrients serves as
an important means to address speciﬁc nutrients
(macro or micronutrients), but caution must be
exercised as any single crop, including a fruit
or vegetable crop, does not assure the complex
nutritional requirements needed to ensure good
health (Graham et al. 2007, DeClerck et al. 2011).
Deeper, less obvious, interactions and relationships
which aﬀect nutritional outcomes and have long
been important in traditional food cultures are
at play. The nutritional complementarity of the
traditional “American three-sisters” polycultural
system, which involves planting maize, beans and
squash in the same hole, is a combination that is
almost nutritionally complete, with carbohydrates
and energy provided by maize, protein by beans
and vitamin A by squash (DeClerck and NegrerosCastillo 2000; DeClerck 2013). Mayan farmers
when eating meals comprising these plants do so
with condiments prepared with lime juice, which is

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 103

very important in making the niacin present in the
beans bioavailable. So much so in fact, that when
maize was introduced outside of Latin America
without the accompaniment of beans or lime,
these dietary interactions were lost leading to
negative nutritional outcomes including pellagra
(DeClerck 2013). Dietary interactions such as
these are often overlooked but play a major role
in improving the bioavailability of certain minerals
(see Box 2).
A recent methodology applies ecological diversity
to nutritional traits, resulting in a metric coined
nutritional functional diversity or Nut FD
(Figure 1; DeClerck et al. 2011; Remans et al.
2011). Household, landscape and national-level
assessments (DeClerck et al. 2011; Remans et
al. 2011; Jones et al. 2014; Remans et al. 2014)
illustrate the importance of such diversity in local
and national food systems for dietary diversity

and key nutrition health outcomes. Thereby these
studies oﬀer a potential intermediate indicator in
the biodiversity–nutrition nexus that environment,
agriculture and nutrition strategies can consider
and monitor towards using a systems approach,
not replacing but complementing dietary diversity
indicators and agrobiodiversity indicators.
Diversity in production and food systems can
impact nutrition not only through the diversity of
nutrients made available for human consumption
but also through other aspects of the production
and food system that inﬂuence nutrition-related
outcomes more indirectly. Crop plants that
depend on pollinators are key sources of vitamin
A, C and folic acid, and on-going pollinator decline
may exacerbate current challenges of accessing
a nutritionally adequate diet (Box 3; see also
sub-section on pollination in the agricultural
biodiversity chapter). Species diversity has

%R[,QFUHDVLQJVPDOOƩVKLQWDNHLQSUHJQDQWDQGQXUVLQJZRPHQLQUXUDO%DQJODGHVK
In Bangladesh, a sh chutney was developed to increase the contribution of essential nutrients
from an animal-source food in the rst 1000 days of life, to supplement the diet of pregnant and
breastfeeding poor, rural women in Bangladesh, and promote growth and development in infants
and young children. The chutney is based on a traditional “achar” or pickle recipe which is commonly
served with boiled rice and curry vegetables. The chutney contains 37% dried small sh, 15% oil,
37% onion, 7% garlic and 4% chili. The recommended serving is one heaped tablespoon of sh
chutney (equal to 30 g containing 60 g of raw sh), to be eaten with the main meal. The sh chutney
is well-liked by women and is a good source of micronutrients such as iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin
B12, as well as animal protein and essential fatty acids. The particular relevance of the latter for
cognition in the rst 1000 days is especially important. In addition, the sh itself enhances the
bioavailability of minerals from the plant-source foods (rice and vegetables) in the meal.
The sh chutney, produced by a women s group, is presently being distributed to 150 pregnant and
lactating rural women in Sunamganj, north-eastern Bangladesh, through a project aimed at improving
the livelihoods of poor rural households. The small sh used is sourced from the wetlands and sundried by local women. Assistance, training and supervision have been provided to ensure safe and
hygienic conditions for processing, storage and transportation. Women receiving the sh chutney
report producing “a lot of milk” and their children “getting more milk, being satis ed and growing
well”. Partners have shown interest in using the product in national food programmes, emergency
response food rations, school feeding programmes and for sale in local and urban outlets.
This project demonstrates that food processing is important for highly perishable products such as
sh, fruit or vegetables. They may increase food safety, market opportunities, the geographical and
temporal usage, as well as the livelihood of small-scale producers.

104 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

been shown to stimulate productivity, stability,
ecosystem services, and resilience in natural and
in agricultural ecosystems (Cadotte et al. 2012;
Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2012; Kremen
and Miles 2012; Khoury et al. 2014). In general,
increasing the number of species in a community
or system will enhance the number of functions
provided by that community, and will reinforce the
stability of provision of those functions (DeClerck
et al. 2011).
By using diversity metrics in agriculture–nutrition
strategies, synergies as well as trade-oﬀs with other
outcomes, e.g. environmental beneﬁts, can be
evaluated and taken into account. In view of global
national food supplies that have become more
homogeneous in composition (Khoury et al. 2014),
monitoring and ensuring diversity for nutrition and
other outcomes seems increasingly important.
A CGIAR initiative, nutrition-sensitive landscapes
(NSL), applies such systems approaches to
concrete low-income settings. The NSL initiative

is about setting nutritional, environmental and
agricultural targets together, and identifying
mechanisms to achieve these using a systems
approach. The overall objective is to create
synergies and minimize trade-offs between
reducing malnutrition of vulnerable populations
and restoring and employing ecosystem services.
NSL does not imply that the environment can
produce all the nutrients required for adequate
human nutrition; it does, however, mean a
focus on building biological diversity into the
landscape, diet, market and food system to provide
multiple sources of nutrients, and contribute to
environmental and population resilience. NSL is
currently strongly embedded with the farming
systems research of the CGIAR in a diversity
of settings, from aquatic agricultural systems,
to humid tropics and forest areas. Across these
diverse settings, biodiversity and dietary diversity
sit at the nexus of environment, agriculture and
nutrition, and serve as the entry point for this
landscape-based approach. 

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻSchematic presentation of the nutritional functional diversity metric, based on (1) species
composition in a given farm or landscape and (2) nutritional composition of these species. Thereby the
nutritional FD metric provides a way to assess complementarity between species for their nutritional
function. ǝNutritional functional diversity plotted against species richness for 170 farms in three
Millennium Villages project sites, Sauri in Kenya, Ruhiira in Uganda and Mwandama in Malawi.
ǜɰ

ǝɰ

Source: Remans and Smukler 2013

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 105

“Landscape approaches” have gained prominence
in the search for solutions to reconcile multiple
objectives, particularly in the ﬁeld of conservation
and development trade-offs (Sayer 2009).
In general, “landscape approaches” seek to
provide tools and concepts for allocating and
managing land to achieve social, economic,
and environmental objectives in areas where
agriculture, mining, and other productive land
uses compete with environmental and biodiversity
goals (Sayer et al. 2013). In NSL, “landscape”
refers, it is referred to the spatial extent that
inﬂuences both nutrition and the environment in
the study areas, including socioeconomic features
such as locations of markets and transportation

networks, and biophysical features such as
watersheds. Households and farming systems in
rural areas, especially in low-income settings, are
often strongly dependent on resources available in
the landscape. In the social-institutional domain,
households and communities continuously
interact with each other and with markets,
political and social institutions. These interactions
have a strong inﬂuence on household functioning
and food provisioning. Combining multi-objective
modelling and participatory research, NSL
searches for and tests potential synergies between
improving availability, access and demand for
a diversity of nutritious foods and managing
ecosystem services.

Box 3. Pollinator declines, human nutrition and health
Declines in animal pollinators are a subset of biodiversity loss that have been well documented
around the globe (Vanbergen 2013; Burke et al. 2013; Potts et al. 2013). Over the past decade, the
human health implications of these declines have received increasing attention. Pollinators are
estimated to be responsible for roughly one third of human caloric intake (Kleine et al. 2007) as well
as up to 40% of the global nutrient supply (Eilers et al. 2011). Regions where pollinators contribute
most heavily to nutrient production may also be those where human populations are su ering
from the largest burdens of micronutrient de ciency diseases (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2014). In the
rst published analysis of human vulnerability to pollinator declines based on an evaluation of
population-level dietary patterns, Ellis et al. (2015) found that as much as 56% of a population could
be placed at new risk of vitamin A de ciency as a result of the loss of animal pollinators.
Perhaps even more signi cant in terms of global health is the potential impact of pollinator declines
on the yields of food groups whose intakes, as a whole, have recently been shown to have very large
impacts on the global burden of disease. If pollinators work would need to be done manually by
mankind, additional economic costs would appear for a work less e ciently performed. The recent
assessment of the global burden of disease has emphasized a global pandemic of NCDs including
cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and diet-related cancers (Lim et al. 2010). Because their intakes
reduce the risk of these diseases, low intakes of fruit, nuts and seeds, and vegetables have been
shown to rank fourth, twelfth, and seventeenth on the list of global risk factors for burden of disease.
ields of each of these food groups are highly pollinator dependent. A recent analysis involving a
member of our authorship group is currently in press at the Lancet and suggests very large global
burdens of disease would result from reduced intake of these food groups as a consequence of
animal pollinator declines. This analysis also emphasizes that large numbers of people around
the world would additionally be placed at risk for folate and vitamin A de ciency, and many who
are already de cient would become more de cient. Thus, animal pollinator declines could lead to
substantial new disease burdens from both micronutrient de ciencies and chronic diseases.

106 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

4. Wild foods and human nutrition
3.1 Wild foods and diet diversity
Wild biodiversity has an important role in
contributing to food production and security in
many agroecosystems worldwide (Scoones et al.
1992; Johns and Maundu 2006; Termote et al.
2011; Turner et al. 2011; Dogan 2012; Termote
et al. 2012a; Mavengahama et al. 2013; Vinceti et
al. 2013; Powell et al. 2014; Achigan-Dako et al.
2014; Vira et al. 2015). More than 10 millennia
after the emergence of settled agriculture, millions
of rural smallholders in most geographical regions
of the world are still reliant on wild products
from foraging forests and wild lands for their
subsistence and livelihoods (Wunder et al. 2014),
although a recent study of wild product harvesting
by 32 indigneous communities in the Ecuadorian
Amazon showed this was declining (Gray et al.
2015). Ickowitz et al. (2014) found a signiﬁcant
positive relationship between tree cover and
dietary diversity, suggesting that children in Africa
who live in areas with more tree cover have more
diverse and nutritious diets. In a comparative
analysis of environmental income data collected
from some 8000 households in 24 developing
countries, Angelsen et al. (2014) highlighted that
environmental income accounts for 28% of total
household income, with 77% coming from natural
forests. Food products (wild fruit and vegetables,
ﬁsh, bushmeat, mushrooms) were the second
most important category (over 30%) and likely to
help meet the nutritional, medicinal, utilitarian
and ritual needs of many households.
A recent survey summarizing information from
36 studies in 22 countries highlights that wild
biodiversity still plays an important role in local
contexts with around 90–100 wild species per
location and community group. Based on some
estimates, the use of wild food reached up to
300–800 species, although actual consumption
and dietary intakes were not studied (Bharucha and

Pretty 2010). Xu et al. (2004) reported that 283
diﬀerent species of edible vegetables were found
in the markets of Xishuangbanna in southwest
China and the trade in wild vegetables contributed
between 15% and 84% of market income for
diﬀerent groups. This represented between 4% and
13% of total household income. Notably, the mean
price of wild vegetables was 72% higher than that of
cultivated vegetables. In South Africa, Shackleton
et al. (1998) found that 25% of households sampled
in nine villages sold wild vegetables.To investigate
the importance of wild foods in Europe, Schulp et
al. (2014) analysed the availability, utilization and
beneﬁts of wild game, wild plants and mushrooms
in the European Union (EU). They recorded a wide
variety of game (38 species), vascular plants (81
species) and mushrooms (27 species) collected and
consumed throughout the EU.
Wild foods include varied forms of both plant
and animal products, ranging from fruits, leafy
vegetables, woody foliage, bulbs and tubers,
cereals and grains, nuts and kernels, saps and
gums (which are eaten or used to make drinks),
mushrooms, to invertebrates such as insects and
snails, honey, bird eggs, bushmeat from small and
large vertebrates, reptiles, birds, ﬁsh and shellﬁsh
(Bharucha and Pretty 2010; Shackleton et al.
2010). These various wild foods invariably add
diversity to the diets of people and communities
who make extensive use of them.¹ These examples
also reﬂect broad groups and not the dozens of
species included within each wild food type.²
Abu-Basutu (2013) reported that the species
“commonly” used across two villages in southeast
South Africa included 17 mammal, 14 bird, 6
ﬁsh, 10 leafy vegetables and 7 fruits species. In
comparison, Ocho et al. (2012) reported that 120
wild plant species were listed as foods by residents
of a single village in southern Ethiopia, with an
average of 20 species per household.

¹ In another example, across a sample of 14 rural villages in South Africa, on average, 96% of households

consumed wild spinach, 88% ate wild fruits, 54% ate edible insects, 52% consumed bushmeat and 51% ate
honey (Shackleton and Shackleton 2004).
² For example, more than 100 diﬀerent plant species are consumed as wild vegetables in South Africa overall
(Dweba and Mearns 2011). In northeast South Africa, 45 leafy vegetables and 54 fruits were recorded in a
household survey across nine villages (Shackleton et al. 1998, 2000).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 107

However, caution is needed when analysing the
extent to which wild biodiversity is available
and that actually consumed and contributing to
dietary diversity. In some instances, wild foods
can constitute a large portion of the diet while in
others, actual consumption is limited (Powell et
al. 2015). In Benin, for example, the contribution
of wild edible plants to total dietary intake was
relatively low (Boedecker et al. 2014). More
research is needed to determine the conditions
and factors that actually determine the utilization
and consumption of wild foods and the reasons
for which consumption among communities in
some biodiverse regions may be low. The use of
wild foods is especially relevant where agricultural
production is primarily centred on one or two
cereals or tuber-based staples that contribute the
bulk of daily calorie requirements, but provide
limited micronutrient and dietary diversity.
Wild foods are an essential and preferred dietary
component in both rural and urban households
in many parts of the world.³ Aberoumand (2009)
reports that approximately one billion people
around the world consume wild foods, but it is likely
to be much higher. It is not only rural communities
that make use of and may have preference for wild
foods. There are many wild foods in large urban
markets. Examples include wild vegetables in
West Africa (Mertz et al. 2001; Weinberg and
Pichop 2009), Croatia (Luczaj et al. 2013), Turkey
(Dogan 2012), Brazil (Kobori and RodriguezAmaya 2008), Lebanon (Batal and Hunter 2007),
Morocco (Powell et al. 2014), Italy (Turner et al.
2011), and China (Xu et al. 2004), bushmeat in
central Africa (Edderai and Dame 2006; van Vliet
et al. 2012), ﬁsh in the Democratic Republic of
Congo (de Merode et al. 2004), and mopane worms
in southern Africa (Greyling and Potgieter 2004).
These ﬁndings show that the consumption of wild
foods is not driven solely by need or poverty, but
also by culture, tradition and preference.
While the above data and examples show a wide
diversity of wild species and food types in diets, the
actual proportion of daily nutrient requirements

supplied by wild foods relative to grown or bought
foods remains largely unknown. It is likely to be
signiﬁcant, however, as many wild food species
are much richer in vitamins, micronutrients or
proteins than many conventional domesticated
species that dominate agricultural or home-garden
production (Yang and Keding 2009; Bharucha
and Pretty 2010). Kobori and Rodriguez-Amaya
(2008) showed the higher carotenoid levels of wild
native Brazilian leafy green vegatables compared
to commercially produced leafy vegetables.
Protein levels in edible insects such as mopane
worms (Imbresia belina) are approximately double
those in beef (Greyling and Potgieter 2004). The
same applies to mushrooms, such as Psathyrella
atroumbonata, which has 77% more protein than
beef (Barany et al. 2004). Vitamin C levels in
baobab fruits (Adansonia digitata) (see Box 4) are
also six times higher than oranges (Fentahun and
Hager 2009); Amaranthus, a widely used green
leafy vegetable, has 200 times more vitamin A and
ten times more iron than the same-sized portion
of cabbage (McGarry and Shackleton 2009b).
Importantly, higher values of vitamins and
minerals boost immunity against diseases
(Himmelgreen et al. 2009). Golden et al. (2011)
reported that bushmeat hunting by households
in northeastern Madagascar had a signiﬁcant
impact (by approximately 30%) in lowering the
incidence of childhood anaemia and this was more
pronounced in poorer households than wealthier
households. Most development agencies dealing
with food security accept that there is a strong
relationship between dietary diversity generally
and health and nutrition status, founded on
a number of studies globally (e.g. Ruel 2003;
Arimond and Ruel 2004; Steyn et al. 2006). Thus,
the inclusion of even small amounts of wild
foods add to the diversity of the standard diet in
many countries, with beneﬁcial eﬀects on health
outcomes.
Dealing with the declining intake of grown food
types by increasing the quantity and diversity of
wild foods in the diet is a common strategy in

³ For example, the diets of the Turumbu people in the Democratic Republic of Congo are mainly composed of

cassava, which they grow, but are supplemented on a daily basis with wild foods such as wild leafy vegetables, bush
meat, wild ﬁsh, wild mushrooms, caterpillars, ants and honey, depending on the season (Termote et al. 2010).

108 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

some parts of the world. For example, da Costa
et al. (2013) describe how wild foods increase
in prominence in the diet as stores of staple
carbohydrate crops decline (maize, rice and cassava)
in Timor-Leste. This was regarded as one of the
primary food coping strategies for approximately
two months of the year. More detailed results are
reported by de Merode et al. (2004) for seasonal
uses of crops and wild foods in northeastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo. They found
that during the four-month hungry season the
consumption of own agricultural produce declined
by 46%, while the use of wild foods increased
markedly, 475% for ﬁsh, 200% for wild plants
and 75% for bushmeat. The value of wild foods
traded in the market also increased during the lean
season, a 365% increase in ﬁsh, 233% increase for
wild plants and 155% increase for bushmeat trade.
The storing of wild foods has been observed for
both plant-and animal-based foods.⁴

Wild species often contain essential nutrients, but
information on the composition and consumption
of these foods is limited and fragmented
(Burlingame et al. 2009) or of poor quality
(McBurney et al. 2004). It is therefore diﬃcult to
evaluate the contribution of underutilized wild
foods to dietary adequacy. Knowledge on the
compositional data of these foods is essential in
order to promote, market and expand the use of
underutilized wild foods, for example, in nutritionrelated projects, programmes and policies in the
agricultural and environmental sectors. While
forest foods cannot be a panacea for global issues
related to food security and nutrition, in some
specific geographic contexts, they can play a
signiﬁcant role as shown in Box 4.

Box 4: Indigenous fruit trees: the African baobab
Forests and their non-timber forest products (NTFPs), either through direct or indirect provisioning for
human nutrition, can contribute to food security, particularly in developing countries. The potential
of indigenous food, is mostly derived from wild and underutilized cultivated species, has largely
remained untapped due to scant information on the nutritive and economic value of these foods.
For example, combining di erent indigenous fruit tree species in agroforestry systems based on the
seasonal calendar of fruit availability could result in a year-round supply of key nutrients (Vinceti
et al. 2013; amnadass et al. 2013; Kehlenbeck et al. 2013a, b; amnadass et al. 2011). A study by
Kehlenbeck et al. (2013a) in sub-Saharan Africa shows that consuming 40–100 g of berries from
Grewia tenax (Forrsk.) Fiori could supply almost 100% of the daily iron requirements for a child
under 8 years of age. In addition to micronutrients, the high sugar content of fruits such as tamarind
(Tamarindus indica L) and baobab (Adansonia digitata L) make them important sources of energy. The
fruits of Dacryodes edulis (G. Don) H. . Lam, and the seeds of Irvingia gabonensis (Aubrey-Lecomte ex
O Rorke) Baill., Sclerocarya caƱra Sond. and Ricinodendron rautanenii Schinz have a higher fat content
than peanuts (Vinceti et al. 2013; ohnson et al. 2013).
The occurrence and distribution of the African baobab (Adansonia digitata) in drier habitats of Africa,
commonly found in savanna, scrubland and semi-desert, has great potential to support communities
in more vulnerable dryland ecosystems and in the face of climate variability. The baobab is a
majestic tree in the landscape but it is not only its physical presence that exhibits diversity within
⁴ For example, Shackleton et al. (1998) reported that the majority of households in rural northeast South Africa

dried one or more wild vegetable species and between 20% and 50% dried wild fruits for use in the oﬀ season.
The role of traditional knowledge associated with wild foods is also important in helping communities cope
with lean periods as well as supporting the conservation of wild foods (Sujarwo et al. 2014; Pardo-de-Santayana
and Macia 2015).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 109

and between its trees but also the high nutritional value of its fruits. The most important food from
baobab is the fruit pulp, which is rich in vitamins and minerals. It can provide far higher amounts of
vitamin C, calcium and iron than more common tropical fruits such as mango and orange (Kehlenbeck
et al. 2013a). However, there is a large variability in the levels of vitamin C in fruits of di erent
individual baobab trees – from 126 to 509 mg per 100 g edible portion (Stadlmayr et al. 2013) – but
even the lowest gure identi ed is far higher than in many other fruits. In addition to the fruit pulp,
baobab also produces leaves that are used as nutritious vegetables and edible seeds, from which oil
for consumption and cosmetic purposes are produced (Caluwe et al. 2010).
The potential of baobab for nutrition and income generation is a good example of a new product with
high potential in European market, given the acceptance of baobab as a novel food in 2008. Due to
its high nutrition potential and demand in consumer markets, research is ongoing in East Africa by the
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) to identify populations of baobab, distribution across landscapes,
variation in genetic and morphological characteristics, and the diversity of nutritional content within
and between wild populations. Information on nutrient content may facilitate the selection of priority
fruit tree species for domestication programmes aiming at improving food and nutrition security and
for income generation.
While baobab is one example, there are hundreds of other wild food trees in Africa with similar
importance for food and nutrition security. Developing and disseminating nutrient-sensitive
processing techniques for indigenous fruits can further contribute to rural livelihoods through
diversi cation of income-generating activities and by extending the shelf-life and availability of treebased food products for consumption during o -seasons. Markets need to be developed for these
new products, and processors linked to domestic and international markets to further improve value
chain opportunities. However, the abundance of indigenous fruit trees is said to be decreasing in
many parts of sub-Saharan Africa due to changes in ecosystem equilibrium and loss of biodiversity
as a result of changes in land use, increasing urbanization and climatic shocks, among others. All of
these result in shifts in species distribution, altered pest and disease occurrences, and possibly a
lack of pollinators (see Box 3) for su cient fruit tree diversity and occurrence. Domestication and
increased cultivation of the most important indigenous fruit tree species may help to both conserve
biodiversity and provide rural communities with better livelihood options.

3.2 Sustainable harvest and
consumption of wild foods
Wildlife resources such as bushmeat or wild meat
(here encompassing non-domesticated terrestrial
mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians
harvested in the wild for food) constitute the main
source of animal protein in many tropical forested
landscapes (Kothari et al. 2015), though the
availability of bushmeat resources around urban
centres may decline substantially, corresponding
with a prevalence in child stunting (Fa et al.
2015). Bushmeat also supplies many important
micronutrients in much higher amounts or with
higher bioavailability than plant source foods

(Vinceti et al. 2013). A study from Madagascar
estimated that the loss of bushmeat from the
diet of children, without substitution by other
sources, would result in a 29% increase in children
suﬀering from iron deﬁciency anaemia (Golden
et al. 2011). It must nonetheless be noted that
various activities associated with the handling of
bushmeat, its consumption and (illegal) trade also
involve varying levels of health risks for disease
emergence (Wolfe et al. 2005). In particular , these
include activities associated with unsafe hunting,
butchering and transport of some species,
especially primates (see also chapter on infectious
diseases). Moreover, the over exploitation of
certain wild animal populations is leading to the

110 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

depletion of some species (Nasi et al. 2011) and
constitutes a rising concern for conservation
(Kothari et al. 2015). The resulting mass declines
in wildlife, documented by Nasi et al. (2008), is
threatening the food security and livelihoods
of some forest communities (Heywood 2013),
especially where home subsistence consumption
is more common than the trade in bushmeat.
Interestingly, a study in Liberia, West Africa
has found that regions with access to aﬀordable
ﬁsh protein had higher chimpanzee population
densities (Junker et al. 2015) and highlights the
importance of integrated approaches to better
inform conservation actions. Wild foods such as
edible insects also contribute nutritional value to
the diet of people in certain regions (van Huis et
al. 2013).
Over exploitation or over harvesting is also an
area of concern for wild edible and medicinal plant
species (see chapter on traditional medicine within
this volume), and measures to avert this have been
integrated into tools such as FairWild Standard,
most often used for medicinal plants, the
development of species management plans, plant
conservation areas, genetic reserves, community
agreements, common property agreements, and
so forth (Kothari et al. 2015; Dulloo et al. 2014;
Hunter and Heywood 2011; Heywood and Dulloo
2005).

3.3 Wild foods as a coping strategy
Use of wild edible plants and animals (wild foods)
is a key coping strategy for many rural households,
including in response to shocks, such as crop
failure, drought (or other natural disasters), loss of
cash income, illness or death of the breadwinner.
This coping strategy can be mobilized by one
or more of three strategies (Shackleton and
Shackleton 2004). The ﬁrst is for households to
increase the direct consumption of wild foods that
are already part of their regular diet. For example,
a household that normally consumes wild leafy
vegetables 2–3 times per week may increase their
consumption to 5–6 times per week when faced
with a shock that renders them unable to procure
the usual purchased or grown foods. The second
mechanism is to take up consumption of a wild

food that was not normally, or rarely, part of the
diet. For example, a household may normally
rarely eat bushmeat or wild caught ﬁsh, but in the
aftermath of a shock may use it as their primary,
or only, source of meat until they have recovered.
Thirdly, households may collect wild foods and sell
them on local or nearby urban markets. The cash
earned is then used to help in relieving the impact
of the shock.
While many national or regional food security
indices or models focus on the net yields of key
crops and average those across population demand
or calorie needs, these overlook the potentially
high variability in the timing of food availability
from crops. The colloquially labelled “hungry
season” or the “lean season”, when food stores from
the previous cropping season begin to dwindle,
and the new season’s crops have not matured is
typiﬁed by declining caloriﬁc intake and a low
diversity of grown foods in the diet. During the
same period, food prices are high because stocks
from the previous cropping cycle have diminished.
This combination can result in clear patterns of
seasonal nutritional status or malnutrition,
exempliﬁed by Devereux and Longhurst (2010)
for malnutrition in northern Ghana. This period
may also be a time of peak labour demand for the
preparation, planting, weeding and tending of the
new crops. Tetens et al. (2003) recorded a 17%
drop in mean energy intake by adults between
the peak season and the lean season in rural
Bangladesh. Such seasonal patterns may also be
evident in urban populations because of food price
increases during the lean season (Becquey et al.
2012). Seasonal nutritional or energy shortfalls
can also exacerbate existing health issues such as
HIV/AIDS (Akroﬁ et al. 2012).
There is ample evidence of wild foods being used
as coping mechanisms in the face of a household
shock. Challe and Price (2009) showed how
there was a major shift in primary livelihood
strategies of HIV/AIDS-afflicted households
in southern Tanzania, from a largely agrarian
livelihood (90% of non-aﬀected households; 3%
of aﬄicted households) to a gathering one (0% of
non-aﬀected households; 68% of aﬀected ones).
This is typically interpreted as a result of the loss

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 111

of labour for agriculture to grow food (Drimie
2003; Yamano and Jayne 2004). The number
of weekly trips to collect wild edible orchids (to
supplement their diets or as cash income) also
doubled in HIV/AIDS-aﬀected households relative
to unaffected ones. McGarry and Shackleton
(2009a, b) recorded the use of wild animal foods
by children in households with high HIV/AIDS
proxy measures relative to households with low,
or no, proxy measures. Hunting of wild animals,
birds and insects was significantly higher in
aﬀected households. In a two-week monitoring
period, the consumption of wild mammals was
three times higher, wild birds two times higher,
reptiles almost double and insects four times
higher. Species consumed over the two-week
period include two red data species. Over 40%
of households also sold some of the wild catch to
supplement income.
Hunter et al. (2007) provided qualitative evidence
on how surviving members of a household,
following an HIV/AIDS death of an adult, turned
to procuring a larger proportion of their diets
from wild foods. Surviving members stressed the
diﬃculties of food shortages, including reports
that “locusts are now our beef”. The ﬁndings also
conﬁrmed that food shortages increased as a
consequence of severe household shocks, and that
household food security generally decreased after
the mortality of an adult, with increased reliance
on wild foods. Wild foods may also be a coping
response to other types of household shocks. For
example, the ethnobotanical literature is replete
with references to famine foods, namely, those
wild foods that were traditionally used in times
of drought and crop failure. While dependence
on these may have declined to some extent with
modern national-scale responses, this reliance
persists in some cases. For example, Ocho et al.
(2012) list 120 diﬀerent wild plant species used
by people in Konso in southern Ethiopia, of
which 25 were generally used in times of food
shortages. Similarly, the Yanomani Indians in
Venezuela regularly use 20 wild plant species in
their diets but consume an additional 20 species
during food shortages (Fentahun and Hager
2009). In Botswana, when there is crop failure
due to drought, wild fruits also contribute to food

security until conditions improve (Mojeremane
and Tshwenyane 2004).

5. Biodiversity and traditional
food systems
Indigenous peoples’ food systems and cultures are
good examples of the complexity and remarkable
diversity of food availability and utilization. They
additionally represent important repositories
of knowledge from long-evolved cultures and
patterns of living with local ecosystems (Kuhnlein
et al. 2009). For centuries, communities of
Indigenous peoples have been the custodians
of the vast majority of the planet’s food and
genetic resources, and stewards of the diverse
ecosystems and cultures that have shaped these
resources. Indigenous peoples’ food systems and
cultures have often provided for healthy and
resilient diets, which have had minimal impact
on the environment prior to colonization and
development, and for many generations have
ensured food security and nutrition. These food
systems have not developed in a vacuum and are
strongly inﬂuenced by the forces of globalization
and development (Kuhnlein et al. 2013). The
traditional foods they provide are also under
threat from the impacts of climate change (Lynn
et al. 2013).
Indigenous peoples are often the most
disenfranchised, marginalized and poorest
members of wider society, and they are targeted
by most governments for health improvement
and development. Such development often leads
to dietary change, including increased reliance
on “market foods”, which are more often than
not highly processed and contribute to increased
risk of chronic disease, including obesity and
diabetes. This reduced reliance on traditional
foods has also led to an erosion of traditional food
resources and associated indigenous knowledge.
With obvious outcomes for food security, this has
signiﬁcantly aﬀected the welfare, vulnerability and
marginalization of indigenous communities. This
could be moderated with increased attention to
the principles of diet and health already contained
within the culture, and with the recognition of the
nutrient properties of traditional food resources,

112 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

and how these foods can be used to best advantage
for health promotion (Egeland and Harrison
2013).

of the world’s top ten countries where obesity is
now a problem are in the Paciﬁc region (Ministry
of Health 2012).

Indigenous and local communities have created
an enduring relationship with the landscape and
its complement of ﬂora and fauna (Turner et
al. 2013).⁵ Regardless of geographical location,
indigenous peoples suﬀer higher rates of health
disparities and lower life expectancy compared
with non-indigenous peoples (Egeland and
Harrison 2013). Poor diet is a significant
contributor to premature death among Indigenous
Australians and is considered a signiﬁcant risk
factor for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes,
renal disease and cancer. A study into the burden of
disease in Indigenous Australians (Vos et al. 2007)
attributed 11.4% of the total burden of disease
in the indigenous population to high body mass
and 3.5% to low fruit and vegetable consumption.
In 2012–13, 66% of indigenous Australians
over the age of 15 years were overweight or
obese, 42% were eating the recommended daily
intake of fruit (2 serves) and 5% were eating the
recommended daily intake of vegetables (5–6
serves) (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014).
In New Zealand, statistics consistently show
Māori as being over-represented in key health
areas such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and
diabetes, with much of this attributed to lifestyle
and dietary choices. New Zealand’s latest nutrition
survey (2011) highlights that the country’s obesity
epidemic has increased dramatically over the past
decade or so. This survey found that among Māori,
over 40% of men were obese while 48% of Māori
women were obese. It also found that eight out

A study led by the Centre for indigenous peoples’
Nutrition and Environment covering 12 indigenous
communities in diﬀerent global regions conﬁrmed
the diversity and complexity of indigenous
peoples’ food systems and diets (Kuhnlein et al.
2009).⁶ Strengthening and leveraging these food
systems is a strategy that should be considered to
improve diets and reverse negative food-related
health outcomes. This includes interventions that
aim to identify nutritionally rich traditional foods
and to promote, mobilize and deliver these foods
to target populations. Not only do these foodbased approaches potentially improve nutrition
and health in a sustainable manner, they also help
revive traditional knowledge, biocultural heritage
and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity.
A corollary to this is the almost ubiquitous decline
in intergenerational transmission of local cultural
values, beliefs, institutions, knowledge, practices
and language regarding local biodiversity, and the
foods and food systems it underpins.
Despite signiﬁcant animal and plant biodiversity, it
cannot always be assumed that a biodiversity-rich
environment or landscape necessarily contributes
to better diet or enhanced nutrition of individuals
living in close proximity (Termote et al. 2012b).
Linking biodiversity assessments with quantitative
dietary assessments in biodiverse environments
should promote more ethnobiological studies to
better understand why some local communities do

⁵ For example, New Zealand, the southernmost landmass of the Paciﬁc region, has a temperate but unpredictable

climate with extremes from sub-tropical in the north to sub-Antarctic in the south. Māori, the indigenous people
of Aotearoa-New Zealand, on settling in New Zealand from the more tropical Paciﬁc islands to the north, had
to adapt their horticultural practices to this new environment and its many limitations. Much of their lifestyle
was based on a subsistence approach, including both cultivated and uncultivated plants, and the seasonal
harvesting of birds and ﬁsh. In light of the growing prevalence of obesity and NCD among the Māori, how to
recapture and retain traditional knowledge on traditional food systems is now a high priority for many Māori
communities (Roskruge 2014; McCarthy et al. 2014).
⁶ For example, in Pohnpei, there was major diversity and availability of local species and foods, with 381 food
items being documented including karat, an orange-ﬂeshed local banana variety and pandanus varieties rich in
carotenoids. The Ingano diet revealed the utilization of over 160 types of food, ranging from roots to insects to
palm tree products with milpesos palm, yoco liana, bitter cane and cayamba mushroom found to be a priority
for maintaining local health. The Dalit food system revealed a diet highly reliant on wild plant foods with a
recorded total of 329 plant species or varieties providing food (Kuhnlein 2009).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 113

not make more eﬀective use of edible biodiversity
(Penaﬁel et al. 2011). Possible barriers include
negative perceptions of indigenous wild foods;
excessive women’s workloads and distances
involved for collection; food preparation times;
and poor knowledge among local populations
about the nutritional value of the indigenous wild
foods in their immediate environment. If we are to
promote more eﬀective biodiversity interventions
it is important to address these barriers by
generating and maximizing use of quality data on
nutrient composition; increasing awareness of and
nutritional education on the beneﬁts of edible
biodiversity; domesticating priority species and
facilitating their integration into home gardens;
and developing guidelines for improved use of
nutritionally rich foods from local biodiversity,
including recipes adapted to modern lifestyles.

be around US$ 30 trillion (Bloom et al. 2011).
The complex issues contributing to the alarming
rise in obesity and equally complex approaches
to reversing the obesity pandemic are dealt with
in detail in The Lancet Obesity 2015 Series (see,
for example, Swinburn et al. 2015; Lobstein et al.
2015 in that issue).

6. Biodiversity and the nutrition
transition

•

Globalization, poverty, modern agricultural
practices and changes in dietary patterns have
led to a “nutrition transition”. The nutrition
transition is the process by which development,
globalization, poverty and subsequent changes
in lifestyle have led to excessive dietary energy
intakes, poor-quality diets and low physical
activity (e.g. Agyei-Mensah and Aikins 2010).
A shift from traditional foods and healthy diets
towards consumption of poor-quality processed
foods, often available at lower prices, has taken
place in many countries (see Box 5). Often this has
resulted in the signiﬁcant loss of biodiversity, and
the agroecosystems and knowledge that nurture it,
much of it nutritionally superior to the energy-rich
and nutrient-poor food products that comprise
the more simpliﬁed diets resulting from this
transformation (Dora et al. 2015). Such dietary
shifts are among the complex range of factors
that have contributed to the alarming levels of
overweight and obesity observed in over 2 billion
people globally (Ng et al. 2014), as well as the rise
in diet-related chronic diseases such as diabetes
and hypertension, which have huge impacts on
personal, social and economic development. It has
been estimated that the costs of dealing with dietrelated NCDs globally between 2011 and 2030 will

•

The nutrition transition is particularly prevalent
among indigenous peoples, who tend to suﬀer
higher rates of health disparities and lower
life expectancy, regardless of geographical
location (Egeland 2013) and across many other
populations in low-and middle-income countries.
A recent study out of Australia (Australian Bureau
of Statistics 2014) found that compared with the
non-indigenous population (and after adjusting
for age diﬀerences), aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people were:
more than three times as likely to have diabetes
(rate ratio of 3.3);
twice as likely to have signs of chronic kidney
disease (rate ratio of 2.1);

•

nearly twice as likely to have high triglycerides
(rate ratio 1.9), more likely to have more than one
chronic condition, for example, both diabetes and
kidney disease at the same time (53.1% compared
with 32.5%).
In many parts of the world, this nutrition
transition is accompanied by increased
consumption of meat, total fat and trans-fatty
acids, sugar and sodium, components that
have contributed to the dramatic emergence of
obesity and associated chronic diseases (Ho et
al. 2008; Eilat-Adar et al. 2008; Haddad et al.
2014). Others also highlight that the links and
interactions between diet and obesity may be
more complex than this, with diets excessively
high in sugars and carbohydrates altering the gut
microﬂora to selectively favour bacterial groups
such as Firmicutes, which are better at processing
these types of foods and converting them to
calories with the consequence that the obese gut
microﬂora is much less diverse (DeClerck 2013;
Clark et al. 2012; Delzenne and Cani, 2011). As the
chapter on microbial diversity within this volume

114 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

%R['LHWVLPSOLƩFDWLRQLQWKH3KLOLSSLQHV
Results from the Philippine National Nutrition survey suggests that the nation s diet is consistent with
the world phenomenon of diet simpli cation, that is, less complex and high-energy diets (Frison et al.
2010). Food consumption data from 1978 to 2003 show the dietary pattern of Filipinos comprised
rice, sh and vegetables. Changes in proportions of these food items, however, led to energy-dense
density diets. Alongside this, there is a downward trend in the consumption of fruits and vegetables.
Intake of starchy roots and tubers was halved from 1978 to 2003 (Pedro et al. 2006). On the other
hand, there is increased consumption of meat, fats and oil, milk and sugars. This pattern, described as
the nutrition transition, is also seen in other developing countries (Popkin 2001; Popkin et al. 2012).
Recent diet diversity studies among Filipino children also re ect simpli ed diets as diet diversity
score results are found to be below cut-o points (Kennedy et al. 2007; Talavera et al. 2011). It
should be noted that low scores indicate unsatisfactory nutrient adequacy (Hoddinott and ohannes
2002; Ruel et al. 2004; Steyn et al. 2006). This lack of diet diversity is multi factorial (i.e. lack of
purchasing power, unavailability in the markets, unfamiliarity with certain food items, lack of knowhow on to prepare/consume them). The nutrition transition, together with intensive agriculture and
environmental pressures, is also attributed to reduction in dietary diversity and the accompanying
loss in agricultural biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge (Gold and McBurney 2012).

also indicates, further exposure to the microbial
diversity in the environment may also contribute
to the development of Firmicutes, particularly
lactobacilli and the regulation of immune
responses (Lewis et al. 2012). More recently,
scientists have shown that the gut microbiome is
much more diverse in rural Papua New Guineans
compared to people living in the United States and
attributed this to a western lifestyle, hygiene and
diet (Martinez et al. 2015). Similar observations
regarding gut microbiota diversity have been made
among pre-contact Yanomami Amerindians in the
Amazon (Clemente et al. 2015). As also noted in
the chapter on agricultural biodiversity within
this volume, shifts to livestock intensiﬁcation
and diets dominated by meat consumption also
impact negatively on ecosystems and biodiversity,
and are associated with an increased risk of NCDs,
including cardiovascular disease and some types of
cancer (World Cancer Research Fund 2007).
Some of the highest rates of obesity and growing
burden of NCDs can be observed in the Paciﬁc
region (Snowdon and Thow 2014) where many
small island states have undergone major changes
in traditional diets, to the extent that they are
largely reliant on less healthy food imports (see

Box 6). In this region, it is estimated that NCDs
account for 75% of deaths, while there are signs
that life expectancy in some countries is slowing,
even declining, as a consequence of NCDs
(Snowdon and Thow 2014).
Key recommendations from The Lancet Obesity
2015 Series include eﬀorts to ensure healthy
food environments and food systems through
approaches that protect healthy food preferences
from market intrusion  – such as policies that
promote healthy food services in schools and early
childhood settings – and approaches that allow
people to satisfy their healthy food preferences
through food policies that place taxes on unhealthy
foods or support good access to fresh nutritious
foods (Swinburn et al. 2015; Lobstein et al. 2015).
In Mexico – where the proportion of overweight
women between the ages of 20 and 49 years
increased from 25% to 35.5%, and where almost
30% of children between the ages of 5 and 11 years
are considered overweight – the government,
under pressure to address the growing health
crisis, passed a bill to apply taxes on highcalorie packaged foods (including peanut butter,
sweetened breakfast cereals and soft drinks).
More sustainable and complementary actions

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 115

%R['LHWDU\FKDQJHDQGWKHULVHRI1&'VLQWKH3DFLƩF
The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) have witnessed signi cant dietary shifts from nutritious
and diverse local staples to an increased dependence on imported, often unhealthy, foods in the
past few decades, with up to 40% of all imports being food imports in 1986 (Englberger et al.
2003d; 2011). In 2007, it was the second most obese country in the world, with pockets of vitamin
A de ciency being among the highest worldwide, despite its abundance of local nutritionally rich
local foods, including 133 varieties of breadfruit, 55 of banana, 171 of yam, 24 of giant swamp taro,
nine varieties of tapioca and many varieties of pandanus in the state of Pohnpei alone (Englberger
and ohnson 2013). There was little evidence of malnutrition, diabetes or hypertension before the
1940s, with vitamin A de ciency not documented until 1998, indicating the likelihood that these
were not problems . Englberger et al. (2003d) argue that it was not until a number of US initiatives
started in the 1960s that issues of dependency on imported foods and dietary shifts began and, by
1985, the national school feeding programme provided meals to 30% of its population based largely
on food imports. While access to more diversi ed foods is not without its bene ts, an over reliance
on imported foods threatens food security, sometimes leading to foods with lower nutritional
quality, and can contribute to the chronic NCD burden (borne by an already overburdened national
economy), and undermine traditional coping mechanisms and contingency planning developed by
communities to deal with periods of food insecurity. Unfavourable food and trade policies often
exacerbate these problems. Imported chicken and turkey tails are commonly eaten in FSM. These
are fatty o -cuts, which are not marketed or consumed in their countries of origin because they are
considered “health damaging products” and the practice of selling in the Paci c is seen as a form
of “food inequality” considered by some as inappropriate “food dumping” (Hughes and Lawrence,
2005; ackson, 1997). Such practices in the Paci c have prompted a range of trade-related food
policy initiatives aimed at creating a healthier food environment (Thow et al. 2010; Snowdon and
Thow 2014).

to encourage healthy local food alternatives are
needed (GRAIN 2015), despite the government’s
eﬀorts to put in place food regulations that aim
to improve the availability and accessibility of
healthy foods in schools (Roberto et al. 2015).
One example of an initiative to create healthy food
environments in schools has been the Brazilian
government’s changed food procurement policies
during President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s term,
which favour and support the production and
consumption of non-processed, fresh and locally
produced foods and provide greater equity to

farming families (Roberto et al. 2015). Swinburn et
al. (2015) also point out that the early momentum
to better link agriculture and nutrition⁷ must be
maintained in order to achieve the goal of healthy,
sustainable, equitable and economically viable
food systems. Among other things, this should
include eﬀorts to concentrate on the preservation
and strengthening of national food sovereignty
and agro-food biodiversity, and the creation of
sustainable diets. They also emphasize the need
to include global goals to reduce obesity and NCDs
in the UN’s Post-2015 Development Agenda.

⁷ See Key recommendations for improving nutrition through agriculture and food systems. http://www.fao.org/ﬁleadmin/
user_upload/nutrition/docs/10Key_recommendations.pdf

116 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

7. Nutrition, biodiversity and
agriculture in the context of
urbanization
By 2050, it is estimated that about 6.3 billion
people will inhabit the world’s towns and cities,
marking a rise of 3.5 billion from 2010, and the
total urban area is expected to triple between
2000 and 2030 (CBD 2012). This will present
great challenges for sustainable food production
and consumption, and food systems in general.
A 2014 study using spatial overlay analysis,
integrating global data on croplands and urban
areas, estimates the global area of urban and periurban irrigated and rainfed croplands to be about
24 Mha (11% of all irrigated croplands) and 44 Mha
(4.7% of all rainfed croplands), respectively. This
clearly demonstrates an important role for food
production and security in urban areas (Thebo
et al. 2014). As urbanization continues to rise,
both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems may
be increasingly threatened (Boelee 2011). This
urbanizing trend has corresponding implications
for food and nutrition security, as estimates
indicate that urban inhabitants are likely to
shift to diets that are more energy, calorie and
protein intensive, further exacerbating the risks
of obesity, including in low-and middle-income
countries (Popkin et al. 2012). Despite these
risks, urban spaces also present considerable
opportunities to promote greater conservation
and use of biodiversity, including mainstreaming
of biodiversity into city landscapes and city food
systems, as exempliﬁed by recent discussions for
an urban food policy pact (UFPP); an emerging
global initiative to “feed cities” in a more just,
healthy and sustainable way.⁸ Peri-urban locations
may already be important areas where crop
diversity survives (Elyse Messer 2015).
It is estimated that around 15% of the world’s
food is currently grown in urban and peri-urban
areas, including backyards, roof-tops, balconies,
community gardening in vacant lots and parks,
urban fringe agriculture and livestock grazing

in open spaces (Gerster-Bentaya 2013). A case
study to determine the potential of rooftop
garden vegetable production in the city of Bologna
found that it could satisfy 77% of its residents’
needs and that besides this contribution to food
security and nutrition of the city, the potential
beneﬁts of rooftop gardens to urban biodiversity
and ecosystem service provision could also
be substantial by facilitating green corridors
connecting biodiversity-rich areas across and close
to the city (Orsini et al. 2014).
There is a direct relationship between biodiversity
and food security in cities. Biodiversity and
small-scale production in urban food systems
play a critical role in the ﬁght against hunger and
diet-related health problems, and is pivotal in
developing resilient city-regional food systems.
Yet the rapid growth of cities is challenging
the provisioning capabilities of agriculture and
modifying food systems at local and global levels,
while at the same time, a shift in urban diets
to less diverse and more processed foods has
increased the incidence of NCDs such as obesity
and diabetes. The expansion of urban populations
will dramatically increase global demand for food
of a non-subsistence nature while continuing
urbanization will put pressure on existing food
production, potentially increasing land-cover
change and threatening biodiversity unless
carefully managed. Increasing biodiversity in our
existing food systems is critical to maintaining
healthy global food systems and the ecosystem
services they depend on, and to improving global
food security (CBD 2012).
With increasing urbanization and rural-to-urban
migration, the provision of a healthy and
balanced diet will require an increase in urban
agriculture. In the Kibera slums of Nairobi,
Kenya, households have recently begun a new
form of urban agriculture called “sack gardening”
in which neglected and underutilized but highly
nutritious indigenous vegetables can be planted
into large sacks ﬁlled with topsoil, which can

⁸ At the time of writing, discussions were under way on the implementation of the UFPP, which will be implemented by Milan’s
city government over the next ﬁve years. It was being drafted through a broad participatory process, beginning with an
assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the city’s food system. See for example: http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/04/
expo-2015-host-city-promotes-urban-food-policy-pact/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 117

contribute to household food security, increase
dietary diversity and reduce the need to resort
to other coping mechanisms used during food
shortages (Gallaher et al. 2013). One of the
remarkable success stories of linking agricultural
biodiversity to urban markets have been African
leafy vegetables (ALVs). A project to promote ALVs
in urban markets in Kenya in 2003 resulted in
signiﬁcant impacts and outcomes. Growers around
Nairobi who were trained to produce high-quality
ALVs for city supermarkets saw their incomes
increase twenty fold while sales of ALVs in Nairobi
increased by a staggering 1100% (Cherfas 2006).
The IndigenoVeg network, targeting urban and
peri-urban areas, was also successful in promoting
African indigenous vegetables (Shackleton et al.
2009).

In developed countries such as Australia and the
UK, approaches to urban agriculture have focused
on biodiversity, localization, farmer’s markets,
community gardens and the viability of farms
that occupy or surround cities. In 2008, the City
of Melbourne endorsed the Future Melbourne
Plan which links production, biodiversity and
sustainable consumption by setting out an
ambitious target of 30% of food to be either
grown within the city or sourced from within 50
km of the city by 2020. There are now over ﬁfty
accredited farmers, markets in the larger Victoria
area supplied by some 2000 farmers. Twelve
of these farmers markets are located within
Melbourne’s suburbs, eight within 125 km of the
city, and the rest in rural and regional areas. Rare

BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL

The urban street food sector can also play an
important role in urban food security and
nutrition. For example, the urban vendors in
Madurai who sell ready-to-eat, healthy milletbased porridges have improved access to nutritious
foods and created livelihood opportunities for

the urban poor (Patel et al. 2014). Roberto et
al. (2015) also highlight that local governments
are increasingly using urban planning processes
to ensure that new residential and commercial
developments have adequate access to healthy
food markets such as farmers’ markets and mobile
vendors of healthy foods.

118 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

breeds sold at farmer’s markets around Melbourne
include critical, endangered or vulnerable pig
breeds such as the Wessex Saddleback, Large
Black and Tamworth as well as “at risk cattle
breeds such as the Belted Galloway. Melbourne
farmers” markets contain far greater diversity
of plant varieties and animal breeds than can be
found in mainstream supply chains. A network
of community gardens further adds to initiatives
that make available additional nutritious fruit and
vegetable biodiversity to low-income households
(Donati et al. 2013).
In the UK, the Incredible Edible Todmorden
initiative encourages the novel concept of opensource food, through “permission gardens” and
“guerilla gardens”, which consist of picking and
eating foods others have planted and nurtured.
Under this initative, forty public fruit and
vegetable gardens that promote awareness about
the beneﬁts of food biodiversity, dietary diversity
and nutrition were created. It also held a variety
of communication and awareness-raising events,
including street cook-oﬀs, “Tod Talks”, targeted
campaigns such as “Every Egg Matters”, which
maps local egg production, cooking courses, the

field-to-plate lunch, and seed swaps. Regular
newsletters, an active website, presentations
beyond the local district, and veggie tourism also
serve to maintain the momentum of the initiative
(Paull 2013).

8. Food cultures: local strategies
with global policy implications
There is ample evidence of how monocrop, lowdiversity agriculture, the shift toward urbanization
and the depletion of natural resources, including
our marine resources, has led not only to the
erosion of our terrestrial, freshwater and marine
ecosystems but also of traditional food cultures
in many parts of the world (Anderson 2010;
Petrini 2013). This has dramatically changed our
relationship with food and challenged many of the
cultural norms, customs and traditions which have
governed how we grow and consume food. This
has led to signiﬁcant changes in our food choices,
the amount of diﬀerent foods we eat, the order
in which we eat, when and with whom (Pollan
2008). In some parts of the world this has led to
a growing Slow Food movement as described in
Box 7.

Box 7. Slow Food and Torre Guaceto, Italy Marine Protected Area: a model to
promote food cultures, health and sustainable use
Slow Food, a grassroots organization now spanning over 150 countries, is aimed at preventing
the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, counteracting the rise of “the fast life”,
homogenizing food production, intensive industrial agricultural crops based on monoculture,
and promoting interest in food s origins and cultural traditions at all levels of production and
consumption (Petrini 2013; Schneider 2008; Kinley 2012). The selection of Slow Food products
is based on an established set of criteria and a continuous exchange of information with local
stakeholders to ensure social–cultural, environmental and economic sustainability.
Several approaches have been used to evaluate the sustainability and nutritional impact of these
products. Recently, Pezzana et al. (2014) combined nutritional and multi-criteria sustainability to
de ne the Life Cycle Assessment of Slow Food Presidia products. The study found “high levels of
sustainability” and additional nutritional value of Slow Food products, and the value of multifactorial
approaches in the analysis of the food–health–sustainability relationship (Pezzana et al. 2014).
Presidia products focus on key issues of interest for small-scale agriculture and farming, including
the protection of mountain pastures and pastoral farming, defence of traditional landscapes
and propagation of traditional seeds by communities, protection of small-scale onshore shing,

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 119

transparent labelling, ecologically sustainable packaging and the preservation of traditional artisanal
knowledge linked to processing methods.
Examples include small-scale artisanal shing, which uses low-impact shing gear and regulates
exploitation; it is part of the Mediterranean identity, employing half-a-million people in the region,
promoting sustainable shing practices and allowing sh stocks to recover. Sustainable shing also
implies the need to consider the conservation of marine species, production chains, ecological
communities, and the human communities that support and rely on them for food, nutrition
and income.
The 22 km2 marine protected area (MPA) of Torre Guaceto is a successful example of the bene ts of
Slow Food for local communities. Initially established as a no shing MPA in 1991, its enforcement
became e ective only in 2000 when the MPA authority and local shermen struck an agreement
to implement a ve-year shing ban, allowing sh to repopulate and habitats to recover (Guidetti
2010). Fishing gear and practices that caused the least damage to marine species and habitats
were enforced. By the end of 2005, striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus), large-scaled scorpion sh
(Scorpaena scrofa) and other taxa also rebounded (Guidetti 2010). Once the reserve partially
reopened, local shermen began to haul in catches more than twice the size of those outside the
reserve (PISCO 2011).
Local MPA management authorities can also help shing communities to increase income
opportunities where these are limited by seasonal variations or local preferences. For example, the
Torre Guaceto MPA Municipality of Carovigno is far from large markets, some catch, including mullets
(family Mugilidae), are not a local favourite year-round, making market value and income highly
variable. Collaboration between the MPA Authority, the Slow Food Association and the Fishermen
Cooperative of Carovigno in 2014 led to the production of mullet llets in extra virgin olive oil in
glass jars, to stimulate quality and sustainable production of mullet processing for a broader market.
This o ers a good example of how local communities bene t from MPAs, which are critical for
their protection, and how co-management schemes within protected areas may in turn deliver
co-bene ts to ecosystems and local communities. These may reduce competition for shared shing
resources, promote foods high in nutritional value, and support livelihoods and the conservation of
food cultures. These initiatives are important to jointly increase awareness, sustainability and social
acceptance of MPAs, and maximize bene ts for local populations.

Pockets of traditional food culture remain strong
in many parts of the world despite economic,
social and cultural change. Where people still
retain a close connection with the landscape.
Where biocultural refugia continue to exist,
which safeguard the diversity of food-related
practices for food and nutrition (Barthel et al.
2013). The East Pokot and Isukha communities
in Kenya constitute examples for rich traditional
food cultures with manifold associated traditions,
beliefs, taboos and practices based on living in a
biodiverse environment. More than 130 foods of

plant, animal and fungal origin have been reported,
which are used and prepared in many diﬀerent
ways (Maundu et al. 2013a; 2013b;2013c; 2013d,
see also chapter on traditional medicines). Another
example of retained traditional food culture can
be found in the harsh geography of the Pamir
Mountains of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, where
biodiversity plays a very large role in sustaining life
and the environment has shaped a system that is
uniquely suited to this region and which, in turn,
has fostered the development of a rich source of
skills and resilience in its people (van Oudenhoven

120 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

& Haider 2015). In Indonesia, the Centre for Food
and Nutrition Studies of the University of Gadjah
Mada (UGM) is documenting food diversity and
traditional knowledge among communities in
Yogyakarta. Closely linked to cultural and religious
festivals, food culture is very much alive in rural
communities where ten local root crops are still
widely consumed by the young and old. Eﬀorts
are being made to establish links between these
foods and healthier diets and to promote these
local alternatives to imported convenience foods⁹.
There are examples where traditional foods and
the food cultures which have embraced them have
contributed to sustainable and healthy diets as
well as healthy lifestyles – in fact, the term diet
originates from the Greek diaita meaning way of life
or lifestyle (UNESCO 2010). The Mediterranean
diet has recently been recognized by UNESCO
as an intangible heritage of humanity in Spain,
Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Croatia, Portugal and
Morocco in order to preserve the Mediterranean
food culture (UNESCO 2013). The nutritional
and cultural model of the Mediterranean diet is
characterized by skills, knowledge, practices and
traditions that concern obtaining food from the
landscape to the table, and that have remained
constant over time and space (UNESCO 2013;
Petrillo 2012). Besides the nutrition and health
benefits of the Mediterranean diet, Tilman
and Clark (2014) highlight its environmental
beneﬁts by showing, among others, that dietrelated greenhouse gas emissions per kilocalorie
from “cradle to farm gate” are nearly 25% lower
compared to a western omnivorous diet. South
Korea is another example of a country that has
retained much of its food culture and traditional
dietary habits despite change (Lee et al. 2002). It
is estimated that more than half of the population
still follows the traditional dietary patterns,
making the nutrition transition in South Korea
unique (Song & Joung 2012; Lee et al. 2002). The
traditional diet is characterized by high intake of
fruits and vegetables (especially fermented kimchi
rich in antioxidants, vitamins and minerals) and
low intake of total fat (Lee et al. 2002; Lee et al.

2001). In fact, vegetable consumption is among
the highest in Asia. There is hardly any Korean
dish without vegetables and over 300 types of
vegetables are eaten in rural areas, including wild
greens like Chinese bellﬂower and bracken, ﬁeldgrown greens like shepherd’s purse and wild garlic,
and cultivated vegetables like squash, eggplant
and cucumber (Lee et al. 2002). The inherent
biodiversity of this traditional diet has beneﬁcial
health eﬀects resulting, for example, in low adult
obesity levels (Lee et al. 2002) as well as a 33%
and 21% decreased risk of having elevated blood
glucose and elevated blood pressure, respectively,
compared to a westernized “meat and alcohol”based diet (Song & Joung 2012). Okinawa, the
most southern prefecture of Japan, is widely
known for its population that is characterized
by long average life expectancy, large number
of persons reaching the age of 100 years, and
low prevalence of age-associated diseases. These
positive characteristics are mainly associated
with the traditional Okinawa diet and its deeply
embedded biodiversity, which is nutritionally
dense and low in calories due to high consumption
of phytonutrient-and antioxidant-rich fruits and
vegetables (Willcox et al. 2009). The Okinawa
food culture comprises many traditional foods,
herbs or spices derived from local ecosystems
and consumed on a regular basis (such as whiteskinned or purple sweet potatoes, local bitter
melons or green seaweed) which are classiﬁed as
“functional foods” (“food is medicine” is intrinsic
of Okinawan culture) due to their, among
others, anticancer, antidiabetic, antiviral, antiinﬂammatory and immune-enhancing properties
(Willcox et al. 2009; Sho 2001).
The New Nordic Diet (NND)¹⁰ was recently
developed in Nordic countries in collaboration
with a world-leading Copenhagen gourmet
restaurant to promote a food-based dietary
concept that emphasizes gastronomy, health and
the environment (Poulsen et al. 2014). Based
on traditional food culture and dietary habits,
the NND strongly relies on diverse, regional
foods in season such as berries, cabbages, pears,

⁹ See Traditional Root Crops in Indonesia (http://www.b4fn.org/case-studies/traditional-root-crops-in-indonesia/) and many
other related case studies of food cultures.
¹⁰ http://newnordicfood.org/about-nnf-ii/new-nordic-kitchen-manifesto/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 121

UNDP

apples, root vegetables, oats, rye, and ﬁsh – all
of them traditional Nordic foods that have been
found to have beneﬁcial nutrition and health
eﬀects (Poulsen et al. 2014; Olsen et al. 2011).
Preliminary evidence shows that compliance
with NND and its traditional healthy foods is
related to decreased mortality among Danes aged
50–64 years (Olsen et al. 2011), increased weight
loss and improved blood pressure reduction in
centrally obese individuals (Poulsen et al. 2014),
and signiﬁcantly higher micronutrient intake (e.g.
iodine 11%, vitamin D 42%) among schoolchildren
aged 8–11 years compared to control groups
(Andersen et al. 2014). Furthermore, estimates
from Denmark indicate that shifting from the
average Danish diet to NND leads to overall
socioeconomic savings of €42–266/person per
year due to reduced environmental impacts and
their associated costs (Saxe 2014). The example
of NND shows that culturally appropriate dietary
patterns based on local and traditional biodiverse
foods can successfully be developed in order to
reach societal nutritional goals as well as decrease
environmental impacts (Saxe 2014; Bere & Brug
2009).

9. Mainstreaming biodiversity
for food and nutrition into public
policies
Policy support is essential for making changes
sustainable. Nutrition and biodiversity offer
better opportunities to mainstream biodiversity
into policies, programmes and projects. They
include the commitments made at ICN2 of
countries to improve nutrition, e.g. by fostering
the relation between nutrition and agriculture
through “nutrition-sensitive agriculture” where
biodiversity has an important role to play. Another
major achievement in the agriculture sector is
the endorsement of the Voluntary Guidelines
for Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Policies,
Programmes and National and Regional Plans of
Action on Nutrition (Guidelines) in 2015 by the
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (CGRFA)¹¹.
The Food Acquisition Programme (PAA) and
the National School Meals Programme (PNAE)
in Brazil are two public policy instruments that
support family farming by acquiring family farm

¹¹ http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm464e.pdf

122 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

products and directing them to public programmes
and social organizations. Both instruments also
provide incentives for greater integration of
biodiversity and have demonstrated that public
policy can be used to address food security while
supporting family farming, improving nutrition
and encouraging biodiversity conservation.
By 2014, more than US$ 3.3 billion had been spent
on the purchase of over 3 million tonnes of food
under the PAA, with an average of 80,000 farming
families/year involved in the programme. The PAA
is currently being implemented in approximately
48% of Brazilian municipalities.
In 2014, 619 of Brazilian municipalities (11%) were
assisted, reaching more than 3,900 governmental
and non-governmental organizations, including
schools, child care organizations, nursing homes
and community kitchens.¹² An estimated 15
million people/year beneﬁt from food distribution
under the programme. The PAA has contributed
to promoting dietary diversiﬁcation (including
fruits and vegetables), sustainable management of
biodiversity for food and nutrition on family farms,
and the recovery and promotion of neglected and
underutilized regional and local biodiversity foods.
In schools, the PAA ensures that fresh, locally
produced, often organic food, more compatible
with local food cultures, is also made available in
canteens. The programme has also contributed to
the validation and documentation of threatened
traditional knowledge, food customs and local
cultures associated with these foods, and foods
such as babassu palm (Attalea speciosa) ﬂour, baru
nut (Dipteryx alata) ﬂour, cupuaçu (Theobroma
grandiflorum), palm hearts, umbu (Spondias
tuberosa), maxixe (Cucumis anguria) and jambú
(Syzygium sp.) are being served more frequently
in schools and social care organizations (Grisa and
Schmitt 2013). While the nutritional impacts have
yet to be fully assessed, preliminary PAA survey
results indicate improvements in dietary diversity
and health status of target families.

The Ministry of Education through the National
Fund for Education Development (FNDE) is
responsible for the PNAE, which aims to meet
the nutritional needs of schoolchildren, and
is considered one of the largest school feeding
programmes in the world. By 2012, it is estimated
that the programme assisted over 43 million
schoolchildren. In 2009, the PNAE decreed that
at least 30% of the food purchased through
its programme must be bought directly from
family farmers, which may encourage the use of
native species, and promote local and regional
biodiversity. The FNDE also supports efforts
through the promotion of school gardens to
improve awareness about food production and
healthy eating habits.
In Brazil, other relevant instruments to
mainstream biodiversity for food and nutrition
also include the Food and Nutrition National
Policy (PNAN), National Plan for the Promotion
of Socio-biodiversity Product Chains (PNPSB)
and Development of Organic Agriculture (ProOrganic). A key component of this eﬀort is to
carry out nutritional composition analysis of
prioritized native edible species, both wild and
cultivated, to demonstrate that these species
are rich in nutrients and to use this knowledge
base to bring biodiversity conservation and its
sustainable use into these diﬀerent public policies,
and provide added incentives for procurement and
use in school feeding. Brazil, with the assistance
of the Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition
(BFN) Initiative¹³, will establish the nutritional
composition data of over 70 native species
prioritized by the Plants for the Future initiative,
and those included in the PNPSB. This includes,
baru (Dipteryx alata), buriti (Mauritia ﬂexuosa),
cagaita (Eugenia dysenterica), mangaba (Hancornia
speciosa) and pequi (Caryocar brasiliense). It
also includes Umbu (Spondias tuberosa) from
the Caatinga biome, and cupuaçu (Theobroma
grandiflorum) and pupunha (Bactris gasipaes)
among others. This initiative is also working in
partnership with university-based Collaboration
Centers on School Food and Nutrition (CECANEs),

¹² http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/14_09_15_16_03_05_artigo_evolucao_do_paa_2.pdf, http://www.
conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/15_03_23_15_42_09_sumario_executivo_2014_revisado.pdf
¹³ http://www.b4fn.org/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 123

which are linked to the PNAE. To this end, Brazil is
building national capacity to facilitate the setting
up of “Regional Centres for food composition
data” within federal universities to strengthen
integration and mainstreaming of biodiversity
into relevant policies, programmes, and initiatives
focused on food and nutritional security, and
on the promotion of a healthy, diversiﬁed and
sustainable diet. Collaboration is also under way
with the FNDE School Garden programme to
promote awareness and appreciation of native
biodiversity for food and nutrition.
The BFN Project in all participating countries has
been active in drawing attention to the importance
of biodiversity for food and nutrition in another
important national policy instrument aimed at the
sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity:
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
(NBSAPs).

10. Global policy initiatives
The decades of unsustainable nutrition-related
interventions, not to mention outright failures,
from both the agriculture and health sectors
has prompted new thinking in many relevant
areas (McDermott et al. 2015). Nevertheless,
mainstream nutrition has largely continued to
focus on malnutrition solutions that take little or
no heed of long-term sustainability or biodiversity,
and have relied principally on supplements,
therapeutic formulations, nutrient fortiﬁcants for
staple or convenience foods, and biofortiﬁcation
through conventional plant breeding or genetic
modiﬁcation (Lancet series 2008, 2013). At the
same time, refreshingly new perspectives on these
problems and challenges have been emerging
from ecologists, among other ﬁelds, on the need
to better integrate the disciplines of nutrition,
agronomy, ecology, economics with nutrition and
human health, agriculture and food production,
environmental health and economic development
to address the multiple goals of reducing
malnutrition, promoting sustainable agricultural
and food production and environmental
protection, often called eco-nutrition (Wahlqvist
& Specht 1998; Deckelbaum 2011; Deckelbaum et
al. 2006) or nutrition-sensitive agriculture (ICN2).

Sustainability was featured as an important issue
in many sectors, but in nutrition it was not clear
how to proceed. As the health sector’s individual
nutrient approach and the agriculture sector’s food
production approach were not leading to improved
nutritional outcomes, the focus had to turn to
“diets” as the fundamental unit of nutrition.
Biodiversity was the theme of the First
International Conference on Sustainable Diets
motivated by the growing awareness of the
alarming pace of biodiversity loss, ecosystem
degradation and their negative impacts on health
and development. The Conference provided a
forum for consolidating the state of knowledge and
advancing the thinking with a multidisciplinary
focus. In addition to the scientiﬁc sessions, two
working groups were convened: one to work on
the draft deﬁnition of sustainable diets and the
other to develop a code of conduct (or code of
practice). A consensus deﬁnition of sustainable
diets, adopted at the First International
Conference on Sustainable Diets, acknowledged
the interdependencies of food production and
consumption with food requirements and nutrient
recommendations, and reaﬃrmed the notion that
the health of humans cannot be isolated from the
health of ecosystems. Biodiversity was included
as an important component of the deﬁnition (see
Box Deﬁnition of sustainable diets).
Deﬁnition: Sustainable Diets are those diets
with low environmental impacts, which
contribute to food and nutrition security
and to a healthy life for present and future
generations. Sustainable diets are protective
and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems;
culturally acceptable; accessible; economically
fair and aﬀordable; nutritionally adequate,
safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and
human resources.
At the same time, Working Group 2 prepared
a preamble and an outline for what might one
day be developed and adopted as a code of
conduct or practice. It was modelled on the WHO
International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk

124 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Substitutes (WHO 1981). Text from that preamble
included the following statements:

•

Conscious that food is an unequalled way of
providing ideal nutrition for all ages and life stages;

•

Recognizing that the conservation and
sustainable use of food biodiversity is an
important part of human well-being;

• Considering that when ecosystems are not
able to support healthy diets, there is a legitimate
use of supplements and fortiﬁcants; but when
ecosystems are able to support healthy diets,
nutrition programmes, policies and interventions
supporting the use of supplements and fortiﬁcants
are inappropriate and can create or exacerbate
malnutrition, and that the marketing of these food
substitutes and related products can contribute to
major public health problems.
A platform for action was also conceived at the
Conference, with the aim to improving the
evidence base for biodiversity and nutrition.
This has led to research partnerships involving
FAO, the Centre International de Hautes Études
Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM),
Biodiversity International, INRA (Institut
National de la Recherche Agronomique) and
others, to develop methods and indicators for
the characterization of diﬀerent agro-ecological
zones for sustainable diets (Dernini et al. 2013).
These studies are fostering new ideas for building
consensus on research and actions needed to link
human nutrition with biodiversity, ecosystems and
environmental impacts. Some examples include
new metrics for nutritional diversity of cropping
systems, nutrient diversity within species in
major food crops, sustainability of the food chain
from ﬁeld to plate, traditional food system and
nutrition security (Ignatius 2012), underutilized
fruit for human nutrition and sustainable diets,
and conservation systems for plant biodiversity
for sustainable diets (FAO, 2012).
The Second International Scientiﬁc Symposium
on Sustainable Diets featured livestock as its
theme (FAO 2013b). The biodiversity of food
animal species and breeds was presented, along
with the synergies and interdependencies between

livestock and the biodiversity of pasture and
grazing lands. Features included new data on
the nutrient content of milk and meat from the
native horse breed of Mongolia, with its high n-3
fatty acid content; and similarly new data on the
n-3 fatty acid content of the pasture plants upon
which the horse feeds. Together, the genetic trait
of the mare and the grassland species provide
the essential fatty acids commonly thought to
be found almost exclusively in marine species to
the population of this landlocked country (FAO
2013b; Minjigdorj et al. 2012).
The Mediterranean diet is being used in some of
these studies as a model for sustainable diets, with
“biodiversity” featuring in the most recent version
of the Mediterranean diet pyramid (Bach-Faig et
al. 2011), and as a key component in developing
methods and indicators (Dernini et al. 2013). In
their analysis using 50 years of global-level data
for over 100 countries to quantify the relationship
between diet, NCDs and environmental
sustainability, Tilman and Clark (2014) found
that dietary changes have considerable potential
to reduce both the incidence of NCDs and
environmental impacts. Their review illustrates
a signiﬁcant reduction in some selected negative
health outcomes, including type II diabetes, cancer
incidence and mortality due to heart disease,
for three alternative diets: a pescetarian diet; a
vegetarian diet; and Mediterranean diet when
compared to a reference diet including all food
groups. Other studies conﬁrm these conclusions
(e.g. Katz and Meller 2014; Maillot and colleagues
2011). Such ﬁndings have important implications
for both the health and conservation sectors.
Further integration of these considerations is
needed for the development of robust strategies
and policies targeting a reduction in the global
burden of NCDs.
The sustainability of a diet is heavily determined
by interrelated factors categorized as agricultural,
health, sociocultural, environmental and
socioeconomic; so changes to one aﬀect the others.
This complex relationship makes understanding
how sustainable diets can contribute to food
security and sustainable development agendas
difficult (Johnston et al. 2014). Metrics and

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 125

guidelines that form the basis for wider application
are needed to aid decision-making processes
at regional and national scales (Prosperi et al.
2014), and to better understand the synergies and
trade-oﬀs between dietary diversity, agricultural
biodiversity and associated ecosystem functions
(Allen et al. 2014; Remans et al. 2014).
A clear consensus has been reached in the nexus
between agriculture, health and environment, that
the sustainable diets rationale, with biodiversity
at its core, along with education and policies, is
fundamental to the achievement of the broader
goals of sustainable development, connecting
nutritional well-being of the individual and of
the community to the sustainability of feeding
the planet (UN 2012). The UN Secretary General’s
Zero Hunger Challenge, which links sustainable
food systems and hunger reduction, is critical,
as the world moves from the largely unmet
Millennium Development Goals to the post-2015
Development Agenda. And in his ﬁnal report to
the United Nations, the Special Rapporteur on
the Right to Food issued a key recommendation,
“To reshape food systems for the promotion of
sustainable diets and effectively combat the
diﬀerent faces of malnutrition” (Human Rights
Council 2014).
In 2004, the CBD’s Conference of the Parties
(COP) formally recognized the linkages between
biodiversity, food and nutrition, and the need to
enhance sustainable use of biodiversity to combat
hunger and malnutrition. The COP requested
the CBD’s Executive Secretary, in collaboration
with FAO and the former International Plant
Genetic Resources Institute, now Bioversity
International, to undertake a cross-cutting
initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition
(CBD 2004). Later that same year, the Commission
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(CGRFA) also requested that FAO evaluate the
relationship between biodiversity and nutrition.
In 2005, via the Intergovernmental Technical
Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture, eight high-priority actions
and another six lower-priority actions were

identiﬁed (FAO 2005). In 2006, the COP adopted
the Framework for a Cross-Cutting Initiative
on Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition (CBD
2006). The Initiative gave a useful proﬁle to some
on-going research and development activities,
and motivated renewed eﬀorts in establishing
and documenting the linkage among agriculture,
health and the environment sectors in addressing
food and nutrition security with biodiversity as
a central feature. For the nutrition, community
this represented a major thrust to mainstream
biodiversity in nutrition research, projects,
programmes and initiatives.
The CGRFA, at its 14th session in 2013 (FAO
2013a), formally recognized nutrients and diets,
as well as food, as ecosystem services, in order to
further increase the awareness of human nutrition
as a concern for the environment sector, and the
awareness among human nutritionists of the
importance of biodiversity; and requested the
preparation of guidelines for mainstreaming
biodiversity into all aspects of nutrition, including
nutrition education, nutrition interventions,
nutrition policies and programmes. These
mainstreaming guidelines were adopted at the
15th Session of the CGRFA in 2015 (FAO 2015)¹⁴
to assist countries in mainstreaming biodiversity
into diﬀerent sectors at country and regional levels,
and into policies, programmes and plans of action,
all with the aim of improving nutrition. Prior to
this formalized recognition, similarly important
declarations were made, based on collection and
analysis of research and traditional knowledge, in
order to bring biodiversity and its attendant issues
to the forefront of mainstream nutrition thinking.
One of these was the AFROFOODS Call for Action
(2009). This declaration was motivated in part by
the Lancet series (2008), and in part by a prevailing
dogma that Africa did not have the aﬄuence or
ability to be concerned about biodiversity, or
indeed environmental sustainability, as other
competing issues took priority (FAO 2009).
The Second International Conference on Nutrition
(ICN2), jointly convened by FAO and WHO in
2014, focused on policies aimed at eradicating

¹⁴ http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm464e.pdf

126 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

malnutrition in all its forms and transforming
food systems to make nutritious diets available
to all. Participants at ICN2 endorsed the Rome
Declaration on Nutrition¹⁵ and the Framework
for Action¹⁶. While the ICN2 outcomes do not
explicitly mention the potential use of biodiversity
or genetic resources for food and agriculture to
address malnutrition, some recommendations are
highly relevant to promoting the use of biodiversity
to address certain nutritional problems. Examples
include the following:

• Recommendation 8 on the need to “review
national policies and investments and integrate
nutrition objectives into food and agriculture
policy, programme design and implementation, to
enhance nutrition sensitive agriculture¹⁷, ensure
food security and enable healthy diets”.
•

Recommendation 10 on the need to “promote
the diversiﬁcation of crops including underutilized
traditional crops, more production of fruits and
vegetables, and appropriate production of animalsource products as needed, applying sustainable
food production and natural resource management
practices”.

•

Recommendation 42 on the need to “improve
intake of micronutrients through consumption
of nutrient-dense foods, especially foods rich in
iron, where necessary, through fortiﬁcation and
supplementation strategies, and promote healthy
and diversiﬁed diets”.

11. Ways forward: toward a post2015 development agenda
Food and nutrition insecurity presents a
serious and growing global challenge, as does
environmental sustainability, and unsustainable
and unhealthy food systems. They aﬀect citizens
in all countries, everywhere. They are multifaceted
and complex issues, with no single way, or
single sector, to eﬀectively solve such problems.
Interdisciplinary analysis and cross-sectoral

collaboration have been largely absent, with each
sector promoting solutions that unleash actual and
potential damage to other sectors (McEwan et al.
2013). Examples include agricultural production
intensiﬁcation that causes biodiversity loss (IUCN
2008), food and nutrition interventions that
undermine traditional/local agriculture (Frison
et al. 2006; Wahlqvist and Specht 1998), and
environmental conservation programmes that
lead to undernutrition (Kaimowitz and Sheil
2007). While there has been some convergence
among the agriculture, environment, health and
nutrition communities toward understanding the
interdependence between human and ecosystem
health, and how agricultural biodiversity and
healthy food systems plays a role in maintaining
both, more collaboration is needed to
simultaneously address the issues and minimize
the damage that can arise when sectors work alone
(McEwan et al. 2013; Burlingame 2014).
Policy dialogue is also key. Many voices from
UN agencies, civil society, academia and the
private sector have expressed the need to
include biodiversity for food and nutrition in
the negotiations for the post-2015 Development
Agenda. Calls for Action, Declarations,
Recommendations, Codes and Compacts have
been put forward to assist the research and
development communities in their efforts to
address biodiversity for food and nutrition.
The draft proposal of the Open Working Group
for Sustainable Development Goals presents
nutrition together with sustainable agriculture
as one goal, and halting biodiversity loss together
with protection and sustainable use of ecosystems
as another goal (UN 2014). While negotiations on
this process are still ongoing, the points raised here
are key to informing the critical policy dialogue
that is taking place and indeed to the subsequent
implementation of the SDGs.
Biodiversity sits at the nexus of improving
nutrition and environmental sustainability, and
oﬀers unique opportunities to create synergies

¹⁵ http://www.fao.org/3/a-ml542e.pdf
¹⁶ http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm215e.pdf

¹⁷ http://www.fao.org/nutrition/policies-programmes/en/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 127

between human and environmental health. This
chapter has reviewed many of the issues pertinent
to this and points to a number of areas of concern,
which if improved and strengthened can help
to improve the contribution of biodiversity to
nutrition and human health. These include the
following:
1. The current agricultural focus on food quantity
requires a paradigm shift to look at ways in
which we can maximize food quality and safety.
Biodiversity has an important role to play in this.
This has many aspects to it, including improving
relevant agricultural, trade and food policies.
Topical initiatives such as the current interest
in nutrition-sensitive agriculture and value
chains provide opportunities for biodiversity
to contribute to the quality and diversity of
agricultural production. Regardless of the many
successes of agriculture during the past several
decades, it is clear that current methods and
levels of food production and consumption are
not sustainable, and the ﬁnite natural resources
of the planet are being exhausted or lost in
the process. While agricultural production is
theoretically able to feed the world’s population,
serious malnutrition still persists with an ever
increasing diet-related NCD burden, which
is going to have major public health cost
implications for many countries.
2. If we are to eﬀect such a paradigm shift, moving
from a focus on quantity to quality, signiﬁcant
knowledge gaps in our understanding of food
biodiversity and its role in improving nutrition,
which still remain, will need to be addressed.
Among these gaps are: the need for enhanced
generation, compilation and dissemination of
more food composition data – we still know so
little about the nutrient composition of the vast
majority of the world’s edible biodiversity; the
need for whole diets and landscape approaches
rather than approaches that focus on speciﬁc
nutrients or single food approaches; the need
for better and more informative research and
studies to understand the complex pathways
that link biodiversity to human nutrition
and health as well as the development of
better tools, such as cost of diets and linear

programming, and metrics that help us
characterize food systems’ and ecosystems’
ability to provide sustainable diets; we need
more information on tested and proven good
practices and interventions that can be scaled
up to better mobilize biodiversity to improve
nutrition. Addressing these gaps would go
a long way in creating a more solid scientiﬁc
base of reliable evidence that acknowledges
food biodiversity’s actual and potential role in
reducing malnutrition.
3. To beneﬁt from a more improved scientiﬁc
evidence base of this nature, truly
interdisciplinary analysis and cross-sectoral
collaboration at the highest level will be
essential to ensure the eﬀective mainstreaming
of biodiversity into relevant policies,
programmes and national and regional plans
of action on food and nutrition security.
This will require transformative political will,
leadership and vision. It will also require
considerable resources and budgets. While
there has been some convergence between
the agriculture, environment, health and
nutrition communities toward understanding
the interdependence between human and
ecosystem health, and how biodiversity plays
a role in maintaining both, much more is
needed to yield the necessary interdisciplinary
analysis and cross-sectoral approaches required
to better understand and address nutrition and
environmental sustainability. In addition, much
more is needed to translate recent policy gains
and achievements at the global level to action
and implementation at country level.
4. All these changes, shifts and transformations
will require major attention to improving
awareness and understanding among many
actors and stakeholders. It will also require
signiﬁcant attention to capacity building at
the global, national and local levels. It will
require working with universities to encourage
the necessary interdisciplinary approaches to
teaching and research. Realizing the creation of
a scientiﬁc evidence base as elaborated above
will require major changes in approaches to
how we undertake research. It will require

128 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

RAWPIXEL LTD / ISTOCKPHOTO

novel, innovative ways for individuals,
disciplines and organizations to work
together. It will also require eﬀorts aimed at
increasing the awareness of the general public,
policy-makers, decision-makers and of the
diﬀerent stakeholders across all sectors on the
importance of foods from diﬀerent varieties
and breeds of plants and animals, as well as
wild, neglected and underutilized species, in
addressing malnutrition.
5. All of this presents a big agenda; however,
the post-2015 Development Agenda presents
a big opportunity. As we move forward into
the post-2015 Development Agenda we ﬁnd
ourselves on the threshold of an opportunity
where humanity can decide to alter course and
move beyond business-as-usual, which is really
no longer viable, to scenarios that facilitate
real substantial transformative change. As we
have seen, the challenges of the twenty-ﬁrst

century are increasingly interconnected. The
challenge of achieving good nutrition status
in a way that is environmentally sustainable is
only now beginning to receive serious attention.
A change at scale in how people interact with
their environment to fulﬁl the goals of food
and nutrition security is required. As we move
forward into the post-2015 Development
Agenda, it is increasingly recognized that
human nutrition and environmental
sustainability should be considered intrinsically
linked. But a major question now is “how to
practically do so?’. This chapter has gone some
way in addressing this question. Innovative
scientiﬁc methods, pilot studies, metrics and
good practices are emerging to help us rise to
the challenge. The opportunity is now to ensure
that nutrition security and environment are
closely linked through biodiversity in the post2015 Agenda.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 129

JAMES L. OCCI/AFPMB

7. Infectious diseases
1. Introduction and background
1.1 Introduction
Infectious diseases have important implications
for both human health and biodiversity. Pathogens,
the infectious diseases they cause, and the
organisms that carry them are often recognized
for their detrimental eﬀects, but also serve vital
roles for some species, ecosystem functioning and
supporting biodiversity. The same microbe may be
pathogenic to some hosts and beneﬁcial to others,
and the diversity and interactions of microbes are
important. For example, commensal organisms
(normal microbial ﬂora) serve an important role
in ﬁghting pathogens. This essential complexity is
often best understood in the plant kingdom, with
well-documented interdependencies among plant
species and microbes. In some cases, public health
and biodiversity needs do not align and must be
balanced. However, human-caused global changes,
such as deforestation, extractive industries
including logging and mining, introduction of
invasive species, and urban development, are
driving infectious disease emergence and spread,
as well as biodiversity loss. There are opportunities
for preventing infectious diseases and reducing
biodiversity loss by addressing their common
drivers through a synergistic approach.

1.2 Socioecological relevance and
impacts of infectious diseases
Endemic infectious diseases (those that have
been stably established in a given region) are
responsible for over one billion human cases
per year, leading to millions of deaths annually
(Grace et al. 2006). Two-thirds of known human
infectious pathogens have emerged from animals,
with the majority of recently emerging pathogens
originating in wildlife (Taylor et al. 2001; Jones et
al. 2008). This transmission from other species to
humans ﬁts with pathogen ecology and evolution
(e.g. opportunistic microbial adaptation and niche
exploitation), but our increasing interactions with
the environment are enabling opportunities for
pathogen spill-over into humans and altering
the systems around pathogen evolution and
survival (Karesh et al. 2012). The human–human
transmission potential varies among pathogens.
For example, some infections are established in
animals (enzootic) and can be transmitted to
people, but typically do not transmit between
people (e.g. rabies), whereas others may be
maintained in human populations primarily by
human–human transmission following initial
infection (e.g. HIV and Ebola virus disease).
With global change, ecological determinants are
interfacing more and more with socioeconomic
dynamics, aﬀecting disease risks. As the global

130 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

population increases, over five billion people
are projected to be living in urban areas by
2030, and land allocated to urban landscapes is
expected to triple from 2000 levels (Seto et al.
2012), posing growing resource demands. Urban
demography presents variable socioeconomic
trends, with a signiﬁcant population globally
(≥800 million people) residing in urban slums,
with limited access to sustaining resources and
sanitation (Hacker et al. 2013). While the risks
and impacts of infectious diseases are not limited
to urban settings, urban conditions may present
heightened potential for spread and maintenance
in population-dense settings.
In addition to the burden of human morbidity
and mortality, there are high financial costs
associated with infectious diseases. For example,
the 2003 SARS outbreak was estimated to cost the
global economy over US $30 billion. Regionally
endemic, often “neglected” diseases also inﬂict
economic damages, e.g. control and treatment
for the canine tapeworm-transmitted Echinoccocus
– for which ungulates serve as an intermediate
host – totals over US $4 billion annually. Whereas
emerging diseases may pose acute health and
ﬁnancial impacts, they may potentially become
endemic, posing long-term impacts. Vector-borne
and parasitic diseases, for which the predicted
disease burden is driven by biodiversity changes
(increasing as biodiversity declines), have been
shown to amplify the poverty cycle in some areas
(Bonds et al. 2012).

1.3 Ecological background
Ecologists have observed that animal populations
may contain significant numbers of infected
animals with few ecological consequences, e.g.
healthy pinniped and grouse population dynamics
are inﬂuenced by the frequency and severity of
epidemics without necessarily causing longterm decline (Harwood & Hall 1990; Hudson
et al. 1998). On the other hand, the ecology of
an ecosystem (for example, factors including its
function and structure) can be fundamentally
changed by disease alone. The introduction of
the rinderpest virus has dramatically altered
the animal and plant ecology of the Serengeti

ecosystem with impacts visible over a century
later (Holdo et al. 2007). At a micro-level, the
shared evolutionary fate of humans and their
symbiotic bacteria has selected for mutual
interactions that are essential for human health,
and ecological or genetic changes that uncouple
this shared fate can result in disease (Dethlefsen
et al. 2007). Geneticists have added a further
layer of understanding on the role disease plays
in maintaining the genetic diversity or variation
within populations (Acevedo-Whitehouse et al.
2005; Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. 2006). Humans
have generally worked to disrupt or deny this
process in both our own species by disease control
eﬀorts, and in animals through both selective
breeding and disease control (see also chapter on
microbial communities within this volume).
Despite our disease control efforts, there is
increasing evidence that susceptibility to disease
has genetic determinants, as shown in bovines
(Richards et al. 2010; Driscoll et al. 2011). The
assumption from these results is that disease
(through parasitic and/or pathogenic mechanisms)
contributes to maintaining genetic health, through
“selecting” and “removing” the more homozygous,
disease-susceptible individuals and their genes
(Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. 2003; Luquet et al.
2012; Paterson et al. 1998; Amos et al. 2009).
Disease may also play a role in selection of animals
for predation through reducing their fitness
and this in turn may determine evolutionary
polymorphism and strain diversity of the infective
agents and/or pathogens adapted to these hosts
(Morozov 2012). Disease ecology of natural
populations is complex and there is probably
considerable ﬁne tuning at the level of the host,
pathogen and the environment, also considering
co-infection (Ezenwa and Jolles 2011; Cleaveland
et al. 2008) and predation eﬀects (Hethcotea et al
2004). With some pathogens, e.g. trypanosomes
and avian inﬂuenza viruses, the regular challenge
they present to the immune system in a wide
range of hosts induces rapid evolution of new
antigenic proﬁles in parasite populations, as well
as a strong selection pressure for heterozygosity
and/or variability in the parasite population. The
host community responds with adaptive immunity
and latent infection, and with sub-clinical disease

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 131

at worst when stressed (Huchzmeyer 2001; van
Gils et al. 2007). These ﬁndings suggest that
an ecological approach to disease, rather than a
simplistic “one germ, one disease” approach will
provide a richer understanding of disease-related
outcomes.

Ebola virus, but anthropogenic land use change,
beginning with logging roads, bushmeat hunting,
development of villages and transformation for
agriculture, likely brings human populations into
closer contact with the reservoir hosts (Walsh et
al. 2003).

2. Infectious disease ecology and
drivers

Natural landscapes also harbour vectors of
human pathogens, some of which have thwarted
the colonization and persistence of human
settlements in some regions. In particular,
malaria, carried and transmitted by the Anopheles
sp. mosquito, has plagued human populations
globally for centuries. The drainage of large areas
of wetland and swamps, the breeding habitat
for Anopheles sp., for agriculture and land use
change has helped to dramatically reduce the
incidence of malaria in some parts of the world
(e.g. Lower Great Lakes Basin, Rapport et al 2009).
Meanwhile, deforestation has coincided with
an upsurge of malaria and its vectors in Africa
(Coluzzi 1984; Coluzzi 1994; Coluzzi et al. 1979),
in Asia (Bunnag et al. 1979) and in Latin America
(Tadei et al. 1998) as converted lands often include
more areas of still water necessary for breeding of
malaria-transmitting mosquitos than intact forest
(Charlwood and Alecrim 1989; Marquez 1987).
This is especially true with expansion of paddyﬁeld rice cultivation in previously forested areas,
creating substantial habitat areas for the mosquito
(Singh et al. 1989). In Africa, the extensive current
deforestation and expansion of human activities
into previously untouched regions is increasing
direct or indirect contact between humans and the
natural reservoirs of diseases, linked to increases
in Yellow Fever (Brown 1977), and leishmaniasis
(Sutherst 1993).

2.1 The complex relationship between
habitat, biodiversity and disease
Anthropogenic disturbance and biodiversity loss
have been strongly linked to increased prevalence
and elevated risk of zoonotic disease for a variety
of pathogens. For instance, hantavirus prevalence
is thought to increase when mammal diversity
decreases; the rise of West Nile virus is correlated
with decreases in non-passerine bird richness;
landscape prevalence of Bartonella increases
when large wildlife are removed; and habitat
fragmentation increases risk of Lyme disease
(Allan et al. 2003; Ezenwa et al. 2006; Suzán et al.
2009; Young et al. 2014). Given that more than
60% of described human infectious diseases are
zoonotic (Taylor et al. 2001), including many of
humanity’s most pervasive diseases (e.g. inﬂuenza,
schistosomiasis), the relationships between
biodiversity loss, disturbance and disease will have
enormous consequences for human well-being.
Changing landscape patterns can both positively
and negatively aﬀect the transmission of zoonotic
disease depending on the habitat change, shifts
in species composition and the resulting extent
of human–disease contact (Rapport et al. 2009).
In many areas, human-induced land use changes
are primary drivers of range of infectious disease
outbreaks and emergence events and modiﬁers
of transmission of endemic infections (Patz et al.
2000). Indeed, land use change, food production
and agricultural change are reported to collectively
account for almost half of all global zoonotic
emergent infectious diseases (Keesing et al.
2010). At this scale, the most important factors
may be the contact among people and wildlife that
harbour zoonotic pathogens. For example, pristine
forests in West Africa harbour bats that carry

The mechanisms by which these relationships
occur vary by systems, and include changes in host
density, host behaviour, and mean competence of
all the hosts in an ecosystem at maintaining and
transmitting a pathogen (Keesing et al. 2006).
However, much of the focus on the diversity–
disease relationship to date has focused on one
particular mechanism – the so called “dilution
eﬀect.” The dilution eﬀect suggests that nonrandom patterns of biodiversity loss following
human disturbance will cause systematic losses

132 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

of low competence (“diluting”) hosts, thereby
increasing mean competence of hosts, and causing
an overall increased prevalence of pathogens in
a landscape (Ostfeld and Keesing 2012; Myers
et al. 2013). This pattern is hypothesized to
occur because of a correlation between “pace of
life”, competence and vulnerability to human
disturbance. Consistent with this, there are now
several studies that have found that fast life
history traits also favour high host competence
(Johnson et al. 2012; Johnson et al. 2013a;
Joseph et al. 2013), likely mediated by variation
in immunological tolerance (Previtali et al.
2012). Direct links between susceptibility to
human disturbance and mean competence for
a particular pathogen have also been found in
a few disease systems (Johnson et al. 2013b).
While the dilution theory has been proposed as
the mechanism for some speciﬁc circumstances
(e.g. tick-borne disease), the eﬀect appears to
be more dependent on community composition
rather than biodiversity itself, and has been the
subject of signiﬁcant debate in the literature (e.g.
Randolph and Dobson 2012).
Thus, the impacts of biodiversity loss and habitat
disturbance are far from straightforward, linear
or consistent (Ostfeld and Keesing 2012; Wood et
al. 2014). Even for a single disease, such as Lyme
disease or malaria, the magnitude and direction
of impact can vary across environmental contexts
and scales (Swei et al. 2011; Valle and Clark
2013; Wood and Laﬀerty 2013), and quantitative
reviews across pathogens and systems have also
shown even more mixed eﬀects (Salkeld et al.
2013; Young et al. 2013). Most of the theoretical
and experimental work to date on the dilution
eﬀect focuses on a small subset of vector-borne
diseases that meet a series of strict criteria; careful
review of major human pathogens suggests that
only a subset appear likely to meet all criteria that
would make such a relationship likely (Wood et al.
2014). Parasite biodiversity and human pathogen
richness also covary with diversity of larger
animals (Dunn et al. 2010), driving an increased
risk of emergence of novel infectious disease from
biodiversity hotspots (Jones et al. 2008). Moreover,
anthropogenic disturbance is not always, or even
typically, associated with changes in diversity or

species richness per se, but rather with changes in
community composition (Dornelas et al. 2014).
Changing species and population dynamics may
also cause the ampliﬁcation of a disease, enabling
more eﬃcient transmission and spread.
There is a strong and pressing need for more
research on both the mechanisms and context
dependence of disturbance–biodiversity–disease
relationships – recognizing that diversity–disease
relationships are likely to vary with both space
and time. While negative disturbance–disease
relationships certainly occur, we do not yet have
strong predictive power to suggest when and
where they will occur for most human pathogens.
Environmental characteristics are also strongly
likely to impact the likelihood of feedback between
disturbance and disease prevalence (Estrada-Peña
et al. 2014), but the nature of these relationships
are still poorly understood.  

2.2 Biodiversity and hotspots of
diseases
Disease and biodiversity links can also be viewed
on a more global scale. In a 2008 study, Jones et al.
analysed the distribution of emerging infectious
disease (EID) events, deﬁned as “the ﬁrst temporal
emergence of a pathogen in a human population...
related to the increase in distribution, increase in
incidence or increase in virulence or other factor
which led to that pathogen being classed as an
emerging disease” (Jones et al. 2008). Jones et
al. found that, after correcting for reporting bias,
EID events for diﬀerent classes of diseases had
diﬀerent global distributions (thus allowing us to
see so-called “hotspots” of disease emergence).
Jones et al. also examined the association of
EID events with diﬀerent socioeconomic and
environmental drivers of disease emergence,
including mammal species richness. They found
that mammalian biodiversity was a signiﬁcant
predictor of the origin of zoonoses from wildlife.
These findings suggest that biodiversity
contributes to disease emergence risk. One
potential mechanism for this is that areas with
high biodiversity may play host to a larger pool
of pathogens with the potential to infect humans

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 133

(Murray & Daszak 2013). If we assume that each
animal species is host to an average number of
pathogen species, we would expect regions with
more animal species to also contain more species
of pathogens. If a relatively ﬁxed proportion of
pathogens were able to infect humans, then we
would expect to see more emerging zoonoses
in those regions. However, evidence supporting
this assumption is scant; pathogen diversity
and the ability of a pathogen to infect humans
seem to diﬀer between taxa (Murray & Daszak
2013; Ostfeld & Keesing 2013). Further study
of the ecology of host and pathogen biodiversity
would deepen our understanding of the role that
biodiversity plays in the risk of disease emergence.
This is especially warranted given the rapidly
changing ecological dynamics that are driving
infectious disease emergence.

2.3 Implications of ecosystem and
land use change: drivers of infectious
diseases
During the last half century, anthropogenic
conversion of much of the Earth’s natural
ecosystems has greatly increased. Significant
changes in land use are occurring currently, mainly

in developing, tropical forest countries (Lambin
and Meyfroidt 2011). It is estimated that annual
forest loss has averaged 2101km²/year across the
tropics between 2000 and 2012, and is increasing
globally (Hansen et al. 2013). Much of this forest
loss can be attributed to growing global demand
for food and natural resources (Cohen 2003;
DeFries et al. 2010). In extent, the most signiﬁcant
form of land-use change is the expansion of
crop and pastoral lands, which continue to have
serious negative long-term consequences for
conservation of global biodiversity (Phalan et al.
2013), as agricultural expansion has largely come
at the expense of intact forests (Gibbs et al. 2010;
Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011).
Under land-use change, human activities have
the potential to impact disease dynamics by
directly and indirectly changing the behaviour,
distribution, abundance and contact between
host species and vectors, as well as altering host
community composition. Land-use change has
been identiﬁed as a leading driver of recentlyemerging infectious diseases in humans (Figure 1).
Common land-use changes related to disease
transmission include agricultural development,
urbanization, deforestation, and forest and habitat

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Drivers of emerging infectious diseases from wildlife (Loh et al., Vector Borne and Zoonotic
Diseases. In press)
Land-use changes
Human susceptibility to infection
Agricultural industry changes
International travel and commerce
War and famine
Medical industry changes
Climate and weather
Other
Demography and behavior
Bushmeat
Breakdown of public health
Food industry changes
0

10

20

30

Number of EID events

134 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

40

fragmentation. A recent review investigating
how speciﬁc types of land-use change inﬂuence
infectious disease risk found that more than half
of the studies (56.9%) documented increased
pathogen transmission, 10.4% of studies observed
decreased pathogen transmission, 30.4% had
variable and complex pathogen responses, and
2.4% showed no detectable changes (Gottdenker
et al. 2014).

disease risk; or 2) via a “dilution eﬀect” in which
one would expect biodiversity to negatively
correlate with disease risk (Dunn 2010; Keesing et
al. 2010). Yet, examination of the theoretical and
empirical evidence has produced mixed support
as to which of these hypotheses is generally more
likely to occur under a land-use change scenario
(Brearley et al. 2012; Murray and Daszak 2013;
Randolph and Dobson 2012; Vourc’h et al. 2012).

Despite numerous and increasing attempts to
detect a general relationship between land-use
change, biodiversity and disease risk, studies to
date suggest few generalizations. As noted in the
sections above, a growing number of studies have
shown that biodiversity can inﬂuence disease risk
through: 1) an “ampliﬁcation eﬀect” that predicts
a positive correlation between biodiversity and

2.3.1 Extractive industries
Disease impacts may be magniﬁed in tropical
regions where primary forest is opened up to
mining, logging, plantation development, or oil
and gas extraction (Karesh et al. 2012). These
factors have been associated with outbreaks of
Marburg virus, Chagas disease, yellow fever,
leishmaniasis and others.

Box 1: Case study: Changing human–animal–environment dynamics and the
emergence of Nipah virus
Increasingly intensi ed human-caused landscape and behaviour changes have had signi cant
consequences for human health over past decades. The emergence of Nipah virus provides a useful
example of anthropogenic drivers of EIDs. In 1998, the Nipah virus outbreak emerged in humans
in Malaysia. Flying fox bats (Pteropus spp.), the natural reservoir for Nipah virus, had rst infected
domestic pigs. The vehicle for the bat–pig spillover is thought to be fruit contaminated with bat saliva
from a fruit tree on the pig farm (Daszak et al. 2013). The dense pig housing conditions, respiratory
shedding and high birth rate enabled “ampli cation” of viral transmission, allowing ease of
transmission between pigs and to humans, leading to encephalitis and respiratory disease and over
100 human deaths. The disease was also seen in Singapore and was estimated to cost US 550–650
million in South East Asia, including costs incurred for control measures, the nancial impact to swine
industry, and loss of employment (Newcomb et al. 2011). Nipah virus has also since emerged in
Bangladesh and caused upwards of ten human outbreaks since 2001 (Luby et al. 2009a). The primary
mode of the initial transmission to humans in these outbreaks is thought to be infection directly
via ingestion of date palm sap that has been contaminated with bat saliva, urine or faeces (human–
human transmission following initial infection has also been reported in Bangladesh s Nipah virus
outbreaks) (Luby et al 2009a; Luby et al. 2009b). Domestic animals may also consume the date palm
sap contaminated by bats, thus potentially becoming infected and serving as an intermediate host
for infection to humans or other species (Hughes et al. 2009). As a preventive solution, some date
palm sap harvesters and researchers have tried placing bamboo skirts over sap collection buckets to
protect the harvest from contamination (Luby et al. 2009a; Khan et al. 2012). This approach promotes
both human livelihoods and the continued ecosystem services provided by bats such as seed
dispersion and pollination (Luby et al. 2009b).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 135

The situations by which Nipah virus has emerged and re-emerged demonstrate two key factors: 1)
Human activity has driven Nipah virus emergence events. In Malaysia, deforestation and intensi ed
agriculture enabled the movement and mixing of species and the resulting opportunity for pathogen
transmission. In Bangladesh, human demand for natural resources through tapping into trees for sap
enabled a new food source for bats, similarly providing pathogen mixing opportunities that can be
detrimental to people and domestic animals (and potentially wildlife through con ict with humans
given health and livelihood risks, though this has not been documented speci cally for Nipah virus).
2) Ecosystem dynamics and disease ecology are complex. Land-use change and other changing
ecological scenarios in one region may have unanticipated e ects in another region through species
range adaptations and other factors. Climate change scenario models have suggested that increasing
temperature may enable spread of the bat species that harbour Nipah virus (Daszak et al. 2013).
Valuable information on risk factors for transmission from bats has been gained from bat ecology
studies, such as considerations around seroprevalence for Nipah virus, bat mobility and colony
connectivity, and temporal/seasonal aspects (Rahman et al. 2013). An ecosystem health perspective
is needed to better understand and mitigate both health and biodiversity risks of potential changes

NEIL PALMER PHOTOGRAPHY

to the environment.

Box 2: Ecological dynamics of infectious Disease: examples from South America
Changes in species biodiversity and composition a ect infectious disease transmission dynamics
(Terborgh et al. 2001; Osteld & Holt; 2004, Rocha et al.; 2014). In the Brazilian Amazon, the
transmission cycle for the human Chagas disease-causing parasite, Trypanosona cruzi, is related to
changes in small mammal composition. Species competent in transmission have been favoured
by transformation of native forest for homogeneous açaí plantations. The vector (Hemiptera sp.) is
sheltered naturally in palm trees and is attracted to açaí plantations. As major wild mammals have

136 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

been removed from these areas, the vector is attracted to human habitations and begins to feed
on people and domestic animals living or working at açaí plantations, thus transposing the sylvatic
cycle to human dwellings (Araújo et al. 2009; Varella et al. 2009; Xavier et al. 2012). Handling,
extraction and preparation of coconut açaí pulp can allow for oral transmission (via contaminated
food) of T. cruzi, as the vector can be crushed in açaí processing and remains in cold conditions until
consumption, resulting in more than 100 new registered cases annually (Ministério da Saúde 2005;
Roque et al. 2008; Nobrega et al. 2009). The costs of Chagas disease are high: 30% of infected
people develop serious heart and digestive diseases. From 1975 to 1995 the Brazil Government
invested US 420 million in control of Chagas disease, with a return of US 3 billion, or US 7.16 for
each dollar invested (Akhavan 2000). Similar ecological dynamics have been observed for spotted
fever, an acute infection caused by the bacterium Rickettsia rickettsii, and transmitted by the bite of
an infected tick. Incidence in Brazil has been increasing since 1996, although most cases are not
diagnosed. Human mortality rate is 20%, and the most common vector is the star tick, Amblyomma
cajennense, that typically infests chickens, horses, cattle, dogs and pigs, as well as wild animals such
as capybaras, opossums, armadillos, snakes and wild canids. Changing species composition in small
fragments and conservation units remaining around the Atlantic Forest have resulted in growing
cases in south eastern Brazil, as also seen with Lyme disease in the United States (Meira et al. 2013).
Some disease relationships involve predator and prey, as predators can feed on prey that were
already ill or disabled, removing them from a population and thus controlling disease. Other
dynamics may also play important roles, as seen with the increase in rodent populations that are
controlled by a combination of factors besides predator control (Mills 2006; Armién et al. 2009),
as seems to be the scenario for hantavirus in the southern cone of South America. Several rodent
species and viral genotypes build a parasite–host puzzle in which hantavirus infection is densitydependent of rodent populations. Rodent populations are promoted by food supply, absence of
predators, and even adaptability to synanthropic surroundings (Palma et al. 2012). In this region,
habitat characteristics determine infection prevalence. In Paraguay and Uruguay, the highest
prevalence of infected rodents are in disturbed areas such as planted elds, highway boundaries,
planted forests, shrub-woods and near houses. In these cases, predators no longer exist and even
with depleted populations of rodents, some population densities are high, increasing transmission
risk. In Argentina, areas with highest prevalence are the preserved ones, demonstrating complexities
and showing that knowledge of species and habitat characteristics are fundamental to the study of
disease (Palma et al. 2012).
In the Amazon region the number of cases of human bat bites increased by nine times in areas of
greatest deforestation between the years 2003 (852 cases) and 2004 (8,258 cases) (Ministério da
Saúde 2006). In Pará, the Brazilian state with the highest deforestation rate, the number of cases
jumped from 383 in 2003, to 7,640 in 2004, and more than 15,000 cases in 2005. These and other
increases have been related to the loss of the wild native species that are the natural food sources
for blood-sucking bats; humans, especially in mining areas, may serve as a substitute. Despite an
increase in the number of bites, a decrease in the number of rabies cases was observed, likely
indicating development of immunity in human populations through repeated exposure (Schneider et
al. 2001).
Ecological studies in the Amazon correlate deforestation, hydroelectric industry, human occupations,
and the presence of the mosquito vector Anopheles darlingi with increased malaria risk (Vasconcelos
et al. 2006; Vittor et al. 2009). In regions with large hydropower plants, the rate of malaria is 278

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 137

times higher than in forested areas (Afrane et al. 2006). In Brazil, according to 2011 data from the
Ministry of Health, 99.5% of cases of disease transmission were in the Amazon region. In Amazonia, a
complex set of factors relate disease transmission with environmental transformation. High mosquito
density caused by deforestation, construction of power plants, roads, irrigation, dams and the large
in ux of susceptible people (often living in houses without walls) inside or in forest edges helps
increase circulation of aetiological agents linked to geographical and climatic factors such as high
rates of rainfall, watershed amplitude and vegetation cover (Oliveira-Ferreira et al. 2010).
Genetic erosion may occur with loss of species, resulting in selection of receptive individuals for
new pathogens or ones without ability to adapt to growing resistance to pathogens already present.
This creates patches of high prevalence of infection and risk of spill-over to neighbouring regions,
signifying the need to align conservation and health goals to maintain connectivity between natural
areas to reduce anthropogenic driving forces for the emergence of diseases and biodiversity loss.
Disease dynamics are not limited to terrestrial settings. In marine environments, parasites tend to
be generalists that seemingly use an adaptive strategy of dispersion in uid environments. Infective
forms of parasites are more common on juvenile shes that are transmitted to others through the
food chain by predation (Marcogliese 2002). In some cases, humans can replace natural de nitive
hosts (e.g. cetaceans and pinnipeds) by eating raw sh. Thus, the reduction of sh stocks and the size
of sh caught (Shin et al. 2005) may be risk factors for helminth transmission (Ferreira et al 1984).
Oceans are typically a nal destination for e uent of domestic and industrial activities, and high
concentrations of microbes in coastal waters indicate probable water and seafood contamination.
Many bacteria and viruses are autochthonous to marine ecosystems (e.g. Aeromonadaceae and
Vibrionaceae), so the use of enteric microbes as indicators of microbiological water quality is strongly
limited, although many of them are clinically important to human health and biodiversity (Moura et
al. 2012). Early eutrophication of aquatic systems bene ts parasites with gastropod and crustacean
secondary hosts; additionally, release of waste into rivers and seas from human sewage and animal
farms also increases black y populations, resulting in increased risk of transmission of onchocerciasis
and economic losses to the cattle industry in areas of the Atlantic forest (Strieder et al. 2009).
Taken together, these examples of di erent infectious disease scenarios observed in South America
highlight the complexity of disease ecology, and the impacts of rapidly changing environmental
pressures. Ultimately, they demonstrate the importance of employing science-based proactive
disease risk analyses and risk prevention and mitigation strategies.

The mechanisms vary among sites and extractive
activity, but road building, establishment of
settlements, and increased mobility of people into
remote regions, coupled with a lack of domestic
animal food supply likely lead to an increase
in hunting, wildlife consumption, and wildlife
trade in areas where these changes are occurring.
Further, if sites are poorly managed, increased
populations can strain existing infrastructure,
leading to overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions,
improper disposal of waste, and a lack of potable
water. All of these changes increase the risk of

cross-species transmission of pathogens, which
can result in zoonotic disease. Additionally, new
human inhabitants (recent immigrants) might not
have immunity to zoonotic diseases endemic to
the area, making them particularly susceptible to
infection.

2.3.2 Food production
Changing food production methods, particularly
in livestock production, to meet the protein needs
of a growing global population have also increased

138 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

contact and pathogen transmission opportunities
between domestic animals, wildlife and humans.
Livestock grazing and livestock-associated feed
crops account for an estimated 30% of land
area use, commonly involving deforestation for
cattle farming (Pinto et al. 2008). The resulting
infectious disease dynamics have ecological risks
relevant to biodiversity, especially as areas may
be located on the perimeter of forest, wetlands
and other natural areas where wildlife–livestock
animal contact opportunities are heightened. The
intensiﬁcation of livestock production in many
parts of the world, typically involving high animal
density, conﬁned living quarters, and antimicrobial
use, have created conditions that may enable rapid
pathogen spread and evolution, especially among
genetically similar breeds or immune-suppressed
animals (Liverani et al. 2013). The introduction
of disease can occur through many pathways,
including from wildlife (e.g. via direct contact,
via a vector carrying a pathogen acquired from
wildlife, etc.). Wildlife may serve as reservoirs or
hosts for diseases of high importance for livestock
production, including the majority of those listed
by the World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE), such as the causal agents for foot and mouth
disease and bovine tuberculosis (Cleaveland et al.
2005; Miller et al. 2013). Non-zoonotic diseases,
while not posing infection risks to humans or
wildlife, can have detrimental impacts on food
security and thus access to nutrition for human
populations.

livestock or humans (Messenger et al. 2014).
Epizootics of rinderpest, a cattle disease, have
caused large wildlife die-oﬀs (Domenech et al.
2009). Smallholder farming, primarily in lowto middle-income, often biodiversity-rich areas
in the southern hemisphere presents ongoing
opportunities for contact between wildlife and
domestic animals. As seen in southern Africa,
the co-evolution in wildlife and livestock for
several pathogens presents complex disease risks
(Cleaveland et al. 2005; Thomson et al. 2013).
Biosecurity strategies may not be available, or are
ineﬀective. In some cases, disease containment
measures in food production may pose direct
threats to biodiversity; for example, fencing used
to enclose livestock production sites may cause
detrimental fragmentation of wildlife population,
aﬀecting genetic diversity and increasing risk of
population crashes (Thomson et al. 2013).
Non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in
food production systems (both agriculture
and aquaculture) for prophylaxis and growth
promotion may also pose implications for
biodiversity and potentially human medicine.
While development of antimicrobial resistance

In addition to threats to livelihoods and food
security from livestock die-oﬀs, human health may
be impacted. Livestock may serve as intermediate
hosts for zoonotic disease transmission from
wildlife to humans, in some cases serving an
amplifying role. For example, Nipah virus, for
which fruit bats are a natural reservoir, emerged
in humans in Malaysia following conversion of
forest to an intensive swine facility that enabled
bat–swine contact, and subsequently transmission
from pigs to humans (Karesh et al. 2012).

FAO

Most directly related to biodiversity, although
less well established given limited wildlife
disease surveillance, are known and novel
pathogen transmission events to wildlife from

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 139

is a natural phenomenon, the widespread of use
of antimicrobials can create genetic selection
pressures for resistant strains. Dispersion of
antimicrobial drugs as well as genetic exchange
through ecological processes may also present
non-target environmental exposure in humans
and wildlife (Allen et al. 2010).

2.3.3 Wildlife trade and disease
Trade in wildlife involves the geographic
movement of hundreds of millions plants and
animals worldwide comprising an estimated
economic value of over US$ 300 billion per annum
(including both legal and illegal trade estimates)
(Ahlenius 2008). This trade is driven by consumer
demand for a multitude of products ranging from
traditional medicines, bushmeat, trophies, live
exotic pets, and foods. Within each of these broad
categories exists a wide range of specialty market
value chains that vary greatly in their motivating
economics, sociocultural origins, geographical
source and destination, transportation type
and route, trader and consumer proﬁles, species
composition and condition, and local and
international legality.
Trade in wildlife is illegal if it is contrary to the
laws of the participating nations or the limitations
on trade presented by the Convention on
International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora
and Fauna (CITES). Despite such protections, it
is estimated that illegal wildlife trade results in
a mean source population decline of 60–70% in
targeted species (Karesh et al. 2012). This failure
to protect vulnerable populations is a testament to
the evasiveness of the wildlife traﬃcking industry
from poacher to the black market, seemingly
impossible to monitor, let alone control. Further,
challenges in curbing illegal international wildlife
trade described by Conrad (2012) include high
demand and proﬁt, cultural and societal traditions,
ambiguity of property rights, negative economic
incentives for bans, and inadequate enforcement.
Of additional concern is the fact that only CITESlisted species garner much attempt at regulation
at all, while the ecological impact of harvest and
international trade of billions of non-CITES-listed
animals goes largely unassessed.

The hefty economic value of the global trade in
wildlife is rarely countered in the literature by
its costs to governments and the public for the
introduction of invasive species, as discussed
further in the following section. Likewise, several
significant zoonotic infectious diseases have
emerged in part due to the substantial human–
animal contact that occurs along the wildlife trade
chain, from harvest to end point. These diseases
have included SARS coronavirus (wet markets
in China), HIV (primate bushmeat hunting),
monkeypox virus (exotic pet trade), and H5N1 and
H7N9 avian inﬂuenza viruses (Karesh et al. 2005;
Gilbert et al. 2014). The global trade in wildlife
provides disease transmission mechanisms that
not only result in human and animal health
threats but also damages to international trade,
agricultural livelihoods, and global food security.
There is minimal overall health regulation of
the wildlife trade in comparison to agricultural
trade, and such work falls between regulatory
authorities of national ministries (e.g. agricultural,
environmental and public health) and international
regulatory organizations. Wildlife trade is complex
and multimodal and does not present equal
risk to environmental, agricultural and human
health. Thus the threat of disease emergence
from the wildlife trade and the socioeconomic
and behavioural factors that contribute to it
cannot be defined with one overarching risk
assessment. Rather, speciﬁc market value chain
types require targeted evaluation and tailored
intervention policies that would put measures
in place to facilitate relatively benign commerce
while establishing the necessary measures to
minimize practices that are damaging to the global
environment and health.

2.3.4 Implications of biotic exchange
(invasive alien species)
The term invasive alien species (IAS) refers to a
species, sub-species or other taxon of organism,
introduced by human action outside its natural
past or present distribution, and whose introduction, establishment and spread threatens biological
diversity or ecosystem integrity. Introductions can
occur either intentionally or accidentally, and the

140 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

number of cases has dramatically increased with
globalized trade and travel (Butchart et al. 2010).
Though many introductions have proven beneﬁcial, the overall impact of IAS on biodiversity as
well as on human livelihood is negative, because
they threaten health, infrastructures, economic
activities, food supplies, and ascetic/cultural ecosystem services (Pejchar and Mooney 2009; Vilà
et al. 2010; Stoett 2010). IAS are also implicated
in the spread of infectious diseases; and both invasive species and infectious diseases are known
drivers of ecosystem change (Crowl et al. 2008).
A recent review (Mazza 2013) suggested that
the links between IAS, human health, and
infectious disease are manifold. Some pathogens
and parasites, such as waterborne cholera or
mosquito-borne West Nile virus, can themselves
be categorized as IAS. Thus we can view modern
pandemics, such as HIV and the SARS crises, as
instances of invasion at the microbial level. This
application of the IAS category is more usually
investigated by epidemiologists than invasion
biologists, but the two sciences will continue to
learn from each other.
Other IAS act as vectors or reservoirs for
pathogens or parasites. For example, the Asian
tiger mosquito has been linked to more than 20
diseases, including yellow fever, dengue fever, and
chikungunya fever, and climate change projections
show that the mosquito will likely extend its
range further north in coming years, exposing
more people to bites. Raccoon dogs and red foxes
are becoming a new reservoir for rabies as they
spread into new Eastern European habitats from
the accidental release of animals utilized in the
fur trade (Mazza 2013; Chomel et al. 2007). The
invasion of East Africa by the neotropical shrub
Lantana camara has increased the incidence of
sleeping sickness, since this species provides
shelter to the tsetse ﬂy (Mack et al. 2000).
Thirdly, IAS can also inﬂuence local conditions,
disturbing ecosystems to make them favourable to
pathogen or parasitic invasions. The invasion of the
North American Great Lakes by the infamous zebra
mussel “favours the blooms of toxic cyanobacteria
such as Microcystis aeruginosa [which] can lead to

the accumulation of microcystins, hepatotoxins
and probable tumour promoters in the edible
tissues of ﬁsh and their transfer and magniﬁcation
along the food chain to ﬁnal consumers” (Mazza
2013); some reports attribute the rise of Type E
botulism in Lake Erie to the ecological impact of
the zebra mussel (Perkins et al. 2010). Both the
zebra mussel and cholera have been spread by
the introduction of discharged ballast water from
ships. Cholera killed more than 10 000 people in
Peru in 1991, and has been found in ballast tanks
from South America in North American ports
(Takahashi et al. 2008). Eﬀorts to regulate ballast
water have improved vastly in recent years, but it
remains a primary vector of IAS worldwide with
immediate consequences for human health (see
also chapter on freshwater within this volume).
These vector linkages can be quite complex. For
example, the water hyacinth, a South American
freshwater ornamental plant now introduced
worldwide and especially troublesome in subSaharan Africa, can host mosquitoes and snail
species such as Biomphalaria sudanica and B.
choanomphala, which are in turn vectors of malaria
and schistosomiasis (Mack et al. 2000).
Human consumption of plants can also be linked
to the spread of disease, since plants themselves
are highly susceptible. An analysis of emerging
infectious diseases (EIDs) in plants showed that the
most signiﬁcant cause of emergence is pathogen
introduction via the international trade in plants
and plant materials, as seen with introductions of
potato blight in several regions and Moko disease
in bananas in Australia (Anderson et al. 2004).
Furthermore, the majority of plant EIDs globally
over past decades have stemmed from previously
unknown pathogens (Santini 2013; see also
Bandyopadhyay & Frederiksen 1999; Anderson
et al. 2004).
The ecological, health and associated ﬁnancial
costs from invasive alien species introductions
are signiﬁcant. For example, the United States
loses an estimated US$ 120 billion per year to the
over 50 000 invasive species that have already
entered its borders (Pimentel et al. 2005). In most
nations these damages go unexamined. Beyond

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 141

2.3.5 Plant diseases

the direct environmental impacts of non-native
invasive species lies the less recognized pathogen
pollution spread by these hosts. Under-recognized
examples abound, ranging from the Varroa mite
of pollinating honey bees to crayfish plague
(Alderman et al. 1996; Smith et al. 2013).

All biological entities on earth require energy for
the construction of their physical structure from
molecular components, as well as for movement,
behaviour, reproduction and other life activities.
The ultimate source of new and replenishing
energy is sunlight, but because only green plants
and a few algae can capture solar energy and
convert it to the “bio-currency” of chemical bonds
they are the primary producers in most natural
ecosystems, and the rest of us rely upon them,
directly or indirectly, for our very lives.

As climate change proceeds, most projections
suggest that there will be a further upsurge in
infectious diseases related to IAS (Capinha et al.
2013; Foxcroft et al. 2013; Hatcher et al. 2012)
Perkins et al. assert that “[t]he introduction
of parasites with invading hosts is the most
important driver of disease emergence worldwide”
(2010). It is imperative that invasion biology and
policy be given adequate resources to recognize
and respond to this direct threat to human
health. Eﬀective biosecurity policies, focused on
prevention of arrival of unwanted IAS, and on
properly planned control of the most harmful
species, including those potentially impacting
human health, can help protect our environments,
and also prevent severe impacts on human
livelihood. Risk analysis tools, such as stated
in the OIE Guidelines for Assessing the Risk of
Non-Native Animals Becoming Invasive, can
be employed to better manage risks proactively
(World Organisation for Animal Health 2012).

ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE

Consideration of biodiversity with respect to
plant diseases must include both plants and their
pathogens, and in many cases insects that serve as
vectors for dissemination of some plant pathogens.
Some of the drivers and threats to biodiversity
aﬀect all three. For example, ecosystem and landuse changes (such as farming, mining, human
habitation, trade and transportation) can change
the geographical ranges of plants, microbes and
arthropods, creating new community structures
and zones of intersection, and increase the risk
of the emergence or spread of infectious plant
diseases, just as they do in humans and animals.
Even programmes designed to manage diseases
may threaten biodiversity (Karesh et al. 2012).
Humans depend upon plants for more than just
food for ourselves and our livestock; we require
their ﬁbre for clothing and shelter, and we are
exploring their potential to provide us with
renewable sources of biofuels. Over the centuries,
humans have utilized well over 7000 plant
species, some gathered from nature, but most
domesticated and modiﬁed via plant breeding
for convenient and cost-effective production,
harvest and processing. In nations where crops are
generally planted as high-yielding monocultures to
support modern production technologies, genetic
diversity is critical to sustainability in the face
of myriad threats (pathogens, insects, weather
extremes and climate change, habitat disturbance
or loss, escape of genes introduced into crop
species, etc.) that could aﬀect a subset of species
at any given time. Humans rely currently on only
four species, rice, wheat, maize and potatoes, for
nearly two-thirds of our food energy requirements.

142 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Genetic diversity within such cultivated species,
including progenitors and near-neighbours, is
essential for long-term food and ﬁbre security,
not only for direct consumption but also as
sources of germplasm for cultivar improvement
and adaptation in a changing world (FAO 2014;
Ingram 2014) (see nutrition chapter).
How does plant diversity influence disease
susceptibility and incidence? The answer is: “it
depends.” There is a non-linear, intricately complex
relationship between habitat, biodiversity and
diseases, and evidence supports two contrasting
hypotheses (Keesing et al. 2006; Pagan et al.
2012). The dilution effect asserts that plant
diversity increases the space between individual
members of a species, thereby reducing disease
risk. Monocultures, being highly artificial
environments, drastically alter microclimate
habitat and are more susceptible to high losses
because if one plant is susceptible, all are
susceptible (Pagan et al. 2012; Garrett et al. 2013;
Mundt et al. 2002; Zhu et al. 2005). Disease
and insect infestations may be less damaging
in areas where cropping mixtures (such maize–
bean intercropping systems in Latin America,
or mixed-cultivar rice crops in China) are still
practiced (Castro et al. 1992; Zhu et al. 2005). In
the ampliﬁcation eﬀect, diversity increases disease
risk either because it leads to increased abundance
of inoculum sources for a focal host (Pagan et al.
2012) or because it considers cases of non-optimal
insect vector populations (Keesing et al. 2006).
These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive;
rather, they can be considered as the ends of a
continuum (Pagan et al. 2012).

Each individual plant supports approximately
30 other species, mostly microbes and insects
(Ingram 2014). Many are pathogens, but others
are synergists and commensals that ﬁx nitrogen,
acquire and share minerals and water from the
environment, produce plant growth-promoting
substances and antimicrobials, and out-compete
harmful organisms. Microbial biodiversity, therefore, is a key factor in plant sustainability, in both
natural and managed ecosystems. We know relatively little about microbes that inhabit native
plants and how they interact with their hosts, but
investigators who look for them rarely fail to ﬁnd
microbes in wild plants; for example, a range of
viruses and fungi were detected in asymptomatic
grass species in the Tallgrass Prairie of north-central Oklahoma (Dutta et al. 2014; Cox et al. 2013).
Can microbes residing in native plants jump to crop
species planted nearby? Alternatively, will agricultural pathogens associated with cultivated species
escape to wild relatives? Populations of pathogens
having multi-species host ranges generally have
greater connectedness, and plant community
dynamics can change; plant species having greater
disease resistance can serve as reservoirs for more
susceptible species (Cox et al. 2013).
Aside from its key role in natural settings,
microbial biodiversity is also essential for
successful agricultural enterprise. “Good”
microbes are deployed intentionally into crops
for disease biocontrol, nitrogen ﬁxation, plant
growth promotion activity, and other beneﬁts.
Furthermore, crop improvement eﬀorts, whether
by traditional or marker-assisted breeding, or
genetic modiﬁcation, are dependent upon the
availability of diverse and relevant pathogen

Box 3: One Health
The growing One Health philosophy provides a new and overarching perspective for understanding
the intersections of medicine, veterinary science and the environment (Karesh et al. 2012). Although
plant health and pathogen interactions are clearly central to sustainable life on earth, their critical
roles in the health of people, animals, and other elements of the environment should be more
systematically addressed as science seeks a holistic strategy that enfolds the multisectoral, policylevel approaches that promote a One Health perspective (Fletcher et al. 2009).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 143

strains for cultivar screening and evaluation of
disease resistance.

and viruses in aquacultured species; reviewed in
Stentiford et al. 2012).

2.3.6 Marine infectious disease

Managing disease is an important goal to maintain
ecosystem function and biodiversity in the ocean
and to limit the exposure to disease in both
humans and marine organisms. Many of the
land-based management techniques used in the
terrestrial environment are not practical and/or
successful in the ocean, including quarantine,
culling and vaccination. The reduction of
exposure to and impacts of marine disease may
be achieved through reducing stressors such as
coastal pollution, habitat loss, translocation of
pathogens, and harvest practices. However, some
stressors, such as those associated with climate
change – that is changes to physical (e.g. changes
in temperature, pH, and salinity) and biological
(e.g. range shifts of organisms) characteristics of
the ocean – will be diﬃcult to reduce. Strategies to
manage disease need to include long-term climate
and organismal monitoring, experimental work
to test eﬀects of ocean change on host–pathogen
interactions, and forecasting and decision-support
tools to inform management. Factoring drivers of
disease such as climate into management will be
key to ensuring the long-term sustainability of
diverse ocean ecosystems, and the beneﬁts these
ecosystems provide to people.

Infectious diseases are important drivers within
ecosystems, including marine ecosystems. Marine
infectious disease is a complex interaction between
the host, pathogen and the environment (reviewed
by Burge et al. 2014), and each host–pathogen
interaction should be considered in a case-by-case
manner. The ocean is a complex human-coupled
environment where transmission and severity
of disease can be impacted by terrestrial run-oﬀ
and pollution, direct and indirect impacts of
climate change, transfers of animals (culture,
aquarium trade and private citizens), ﬁshing and
aquaculture. Although disease is a notable driver
of community change in marine ecosystems,
we still lack baseline data and understanding of
transmission dynamics in many systems. The
presence of disease is often ﬁrst noted by dramatic
large-scale die-oﬀs of organisms. In case studies
spanning the globe, including both temperate and
tropical systems, diseases have been found to be
important drivers of marine biodiversity change.
Key examples of large-scale impacts caused by
marine infectious disease include eelgrass (e.g.
eelgrass wasting disease; reviewed by Burge et al.
2013), reef-building corals (multiple syndromes;
reviewed by Sutherland et al. 2004; Harvell et al.
2007; Bourne et al 2009; Burge et al 2014), oysters
(e.g. Dermo and MSX diseases, Ford & Trip 1996),
abalone (e.g. withering syndrome; Friedman et al.
2000) and sea urchins (e.g. large scale of losses
of Diadema; Lessios et al. 1984). Understanding
the impacts of disease on biodiversity of large
interconnected systems of highly mobile
organisms (i.e. crustaceans, marine ﬁshes and
mammals) is more diﬃcult. Additionally, diseases
have had large impacts on both cultured and wild
harvests of commercially important species, such
as salmon [e.g. Ichthyophonus infection in marine
and anadromous fish (reviewed in McVicar
2011; Burge et al. 2014) and viral infections in
Atlantic and Paciﬁc salmon (reviewed in Kurath &
Winton 2011)], abalone (e.g. withering syndrome;
Friedman et al. 2000), and crustaceans (e.g.
protozoan infections of natural populations

3. Challenges and approaches
3.1 Growing pressures and climate
change
Increasing human populations, and their growing
resource demands, are exacerbating the drivers
of infectious disease emergence detailed above.
Adding to these pressures are the impacts of
climate change and associated shifts in species
range, as well as the pathogens for which they
may serve as a host or reservoir. For example,
ecological niche models incorporating climate
change scenarios for 2050 have suggested that
the habitat range and distribution of the bat
reservoir species for henipaviruses will expand,
increasing human disease risk (Daszak et al. 2013).
These risks may be compounded by increasing
movement of species through trade and travel

144 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

and the evolution of a more suitable habitat for
invasive alien species.

/ei?ht of the eNiden;e and further
resear;h needs

•

Research to date has shown strong evidence
for the overlapping drivers of disease emergence
and biodiversity loss. Anthropogenic activities
are rapidly altering ecological and evolutionary
systems under which hosts and pathogens
operate, creating new dynamics and opportunities
for disease transmission and spread.

• Further investigation is needed around the
ecological factors (e.g. community composition,
abundance, etc.) aﬀecting disease risks for humans
and other species in ecosystems. Disease ecology
studies can provide insight on both host and
pathogen dynamics. Understanding of disease
in an ecosystem can be best served through
One Health approaches that consider the links
between humans, animals and the environment,
thus providing a more integrated and broader
understanding of disease risks as well as
prevention and control strategies.
• Environmental impact assessments (EIAs)
provide useful tools to guide risk prevention and
mitigation. Incorporating health risks into EIA
processes can provide a more robust evaluation of
risks, including the high ﬁnancial cost of potential
disease emergence and outbreaks. Disease may
also have signiﬁcant impacts on ecosystems (e.g.
to wild species and their provision of ecosystem
services) in addition to human health.
3.2 One Health approach to drivers of
infectious diseases
The integral infectious disease connections
between domestic animals, humans and
ecosystems are exemplified by the highly
pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1
panzootic. Evolving from a low-pathogenic
strain, intensive poultry production, paired with
inadequate biosecurity, enabled the emergence
and spread of H5N1 among poultry flocks,
geographies, and species, including infection
of wild birds and humans (Karesh et al. 2012)

Similarly, many neglected infectious diseases
have an animal link. For example, echinococcosis,
a zoonotic pathogen transmitted from a dog
tapeworm, causes 200 000 human cases each year,
costs an estimated US$ 2 billion in losses annually
to the global livestock industry, and infects a range
of wild species (Cardona et al. 2013; Karesh et al.
2012). These examples highlight the importance
of disease surveillance across the species spectrum
to enable early detection or early warning systems.
While in some cases disease control measures may
be harmful to biodiversity, they can also yield
beneﬁts for wildlife. Mass vaccination of cattle
for rinderpest boosted wildebeest population
numbers after large drops attributed to rinderpest
infection. Surveillance in wildlife has subsequently
been used to monitor rinderpest circulation
(Couacy-Hymann et al. 2005). Surveillance and
reporting employing a One Health approach
may provide sentinel beneﬁts to enable early
detection of pathogens potentially transmissible
between humans, wild species, and livestock.
This is especially important given chronic underreporting of disease in animals, including in food
production, as well as changing ecological factors
from climate change (de Balogh et al. 2013; Pinto
et al. 2008).
In order to move from the currently reactive
response to infectious disease emergence and
spread, we must also go a step further to address
the underlying drivers of disease emergence, many
which also overlap with drivers of biodiversity loss
(FAO 2013; Karesh et al. 2012; CBD 2012). This
requires an integrated eﬀort around ecosystems,
human, and animal health, rather than a siloed
one-species or one-discipline perspective. A One
Health or ecohealth approach that considers
the links between humans, animals (domestic
and wild), and the environment can improve
understanding of infectious disease drivers and
dynamics and move from response to prevention
measures (FAO 2013; Karesh et al. 2012). Given
the high costs of disease emergence events (for
example, the 2003 outbreak of SARS cost the
global economy an estimated US$ 30 billion) and
signiﬁcant public health impacts (over one billion
cases of infectious diseases annually), both the
economic and health arguments for tackling root

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 145

causes of disease emergence drivers may directly
and indirectly serve to protect biodiversity (Karesh
et al. 2012).
Moreover, given that health and land management
decisions are rarely made on the basis of a single
pathogen, we need to move towards a multiple
pathogen approach and increase our focus on

pathogens of major human health relevance. By
closing these gaps we will improve our ability
to identify synergies between biodiversity
and net human infectious disease risk burden
where they exist, and move to a predictive,
impact-based framework. While EIAs may be
commonly employed for potential environmentmodifying projects, also applying health impact

Box 3: Sentinel surveillance opportunities for the prevention of Ebola outbreaks
The long-running and highly disruptive human Ebola outbreak in West Africa (responsible for >25
000 reported human cases between December 2013 and early April 2015) demonstrates the
public health challenge posed by the Ebola virus. Despite global attention and response, over
fteen months into the outbreak the initial source of the outbreak had still not been de nitively
identi ed (WHO 2015). While the number of new cases had shown signs of decline as of early
April 2015, intense transmission was continuing in parts of Guinea and Sierra Leone. Prior Ebola
outbreaks in humans, and a concurrent outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo beginning
in August 2014, have been linked to the hunting or handling of wild animals, with subsequent
human–human transmission (Rouquet et al. 2005; Feldmann and Geisbert 2011). Some bat species
are the suspected natural reservoir for the virus and are thought to harbour it without symptoms.
Investigations of wild animal carcasses have detected infection and mortality in chimpanzees, gorillas
and duikers, suggesting that they may serve as intermediate hosts for potential human spill-over
(Rouquet et al. 2005). Ebola virus has also been recognized as causing severe declines in great ape
populations, especially critically endangered wild lowland gorilla troops (Leroy et al. 2004; Olson et
al. 2012).
Ebola virus outbreaks in humans are typically sporadic, presenting a challenge for ongoing detection
and monitoring (Leroy et al. 2004). Data generated from the Animal Mortality Monitoring Network
in Gabon and Republic of Congo and subsequently the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT programme suggest that surveillance for
Ebola virus circulating in wildlife may enable early detection or prevention of Ebola virus outbreaks
in humans (Rouquet et al. 2004; Olson et al. 2012). Finding fresh wild animal carcasses had been
viewed as a food resource and a sign of good fortune for some hunting communities, but poses risks
for human transmission (Karesh and Cook 2005). To manage and reduce risks from Ebola virus spillover, reporting of deceased or sick animal sightings by hunters and foresters can provide important
sentinel bene ts for public health and conservation monitoring, informing opportunistic sampling
by trained eld teams who can respond to reported morbidities and mortalities in wildlife with
sampling and testing e orts (Rouquet et al. 2005; Olson et al. 2012). Additionally, non-invasive
great ape faecal sampling may provide a cost-e ective surveillance method and provide data on
Ebola virus exposures and survival to bene t conservation strategies (Reed et al. 2014). This One
Health approach, paired with sharing of information on Ebola virus detection across health and
wildlife authorities and local hunting communities, allows for targeted early detection e orts and
implementation of preventive measures.

146 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

assessments – including wildlife disease risk
analyses – can provide a more full understanding
of potential disease risks to people, animals and
the environment (Karesh et al. 2012).

3.3 Economic impacts
The high economic burden of disease – which
has the potential to grow as anthropogenic
activities increase risks of disease emergence and
globalization enables rapid spread – may hinder
development progress. Reactive disease control
eﬀorts have proven vastly expensive, as seen with
SARS in 2003 (US$ 30–50 billion), Nipah virus
in 1998 (over US$ 500 million) and many other
recent disease outbreaks, and pandemics have
been identiﬁed as having potentially catastrophic
impacts that are global in scale (World Bank
2012). Over the past two decades, the cost of
emerging diseases alone (in humans) has reached
the hundreds of billions of dollars, and regionally
endemic diseases have persistent financial
implications, often to low- or middle-income
populations (Karesh et al. 2012). While emerging
diseases may have acute costs from short-term
outbreaks, they also have the potential to become
established in human populations and yield longterm costs. While pathogens causing disease
in humans are primarily the focus of human
infectious disease efforts, even non-zoonotic
diseases in livestock can severely threaten health
and livelihoods of smallholder farmers through
loss of income and food security, and/or control
costs.
Costs of disease may be borne by both the
international community and local communities
affected by disease-related disruptions. For
example, based on UN estimates over US$ 600
million are needed to end the Ebola outbreak in
West Africa, which began in December of 2013
but was not detected by health authorities until
March of 2014 (Baize et al. 2014). In addition
to the direct costs of response and control, the
outbreak has the potential to yield extremely
high indirect costs, with travel, trade, and other
productivity also gravely aﬀected and resources
directed to ﬁghting Ebola, potentially at the cost
of treating other health threats. As the Ebola crisis

highlights, public health infrastructure globally is
largely reactive, with preventive eﬀorts frequently
hampered by limited knowledge about the source
of disease (as also exempliﬁed by the unknown
animal–human transmission pathway for the
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV)
and the pathogens harboured in our environment
that could be detrimental to humans. However,
recent studies suggest that approximately three
quarters of recently emerging diseases in humans
have come from wildlife, with most of them caused
by viruses, and thus provides a starting point
for predicting and preventing future emergence
eﬀorts (Jones et al. 2008; Taylor et al. 2001). The
cost of detecting 85% of viral diversity in mammals
has been estimated at US$ 1.4 billion, or US$140
million per year over ten years (Anthony et al.
2013). While this represents a signiﬁcant sum, it
is only a small fraction of the cost of an emerging
diseases event and its early detection may enable
actions to prevent spill-over of some pathogens
from animals to humans. Furthermore, routine
disease surveillance of animals may provide
sentinel beneﬁts for humans for early detection
of both infectious and non-infectious (e.g. heavy
metals in ecosystems) health risks.
The eﬃciency gains of a One Health approach
to zoonotic disease were recently highlighted in
a report by the World Bank (2012) which also
highlighted the limited investments in One Health
at present. Speciﬁcally, it noted very low actual
investments for wildlife health surveillance are
being made, and estimated that between US$ 1.9
and 3.4 billion per year were needed (over ten
years) to bring low- and middle-income countries
up to WHO and OIE standards to support more
integrated and prepared national human and
animal health systems. Many low-income nations
are also biodiversity-rich although public health
infrastructure is poor, creating “hotspots” for
disease emergence (see infectious disease chapter
in this volume and Jones et al. 2008). As we move
toward the SDGs, these should be considered
necessary investments for the reduction of the
health burden. In addition to human health
beneﬁts, biodiversity conservation eﬀorts can also
beneﬁt from a more integrated disease surveillance
approach. For example, rabies is a neglected

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 147

disease concern for humans as well a mammalian
domestic animals and wildlife, killing over 50 000
people annually worldwide, necessitating ongoing
vaccination and/or population control methods
in domestic animals, and causing major declines
in some wild canid populations (e.g. African
Wild Dog and Ethiopian Bale Wolf populations).
Moreover, disease spill-over is not one-directional;
wild and domestic animal populations may acquire
disease directly from human contact. Integrated
surveillance and control campaigns may be costeﬀective means for the early identiﬁcation of
threats before they harm humans, domestic
animals, or wild species (Machalaba and Karesh
2012).

3.4 Systems approach and collaboration
While most emerging diseases originate in
wildlife, sustained infections are commonly
transmitted among humans or through a domestic
animal connection (Kock 2014). For example,
HIV originated in non-human primates, but
its principal ongoing transmission source for
new infections is human–human. However,
given the population impacts of HIV and other
diseases that have emerged from wildlife, there
are opportunities to move upstream toward
more preventive eﬀorts for future disease while
still focusing on mitigating impacts of current
ones. Vector-borne disease will always be a
challenge for control from ongoing movement
across boundaries (but it is the vector, and not
wild host, which matters here) and attempts to
eliminate vectors are frequently ineﬀective or
lead to unintended and detrimental ecological
consequences. Despite this, the main concern
related to biodiversity and emerging disease
remains the spill-over of microorganisms from
wildlife into human-modiﬁed landscapes where
the organisms occasionally evolve into pathogens
(e.g. corona and inﬂuenza viruses). Importantly,
the evolution of these pathogens is largely driven
by the human system itself (landscape, domestic
animals, artiﬁcial habitats, behaviour) and through
peri-domestic wild species that have adapted to
the modiﬁed landscape (Kock 2013; Jones et al.
2013). Infectious disease funding streams are
currently heavily directed toward human–human

prevention of new cases, but dedicating a small
portion of funds to preventing future disease
emergence could yield downstream cost savings.
To tackle the issues described above requires a
highly collaborative and interdisciplinary, systems
approach. But, the big question is, where to start?
There is currently no reliable toolkit to accurately
determine which of the candidate infectious agents
will emerge as pathogens. Given limited resources
and millions of potential species and billions of
potential strains of micro-organisms, starting
eﬀorts might be targeted to detecting pathogen
families that are known to be highly pathogenic to
humans and other species and taking preventive
measures, and reﬁning risk analyses for wider
pathogen pools as more knowledge is generated.
In light of this evidence, measures and policies to
reduce risk of spill-over should include:

•

On a precautionary principle, avoidance of
high-density monoculture agriculture and human
activity/settlement adjacent to highly biodiverse
ecosystems (especially urban centres, mining,
industrial and intensive livestock systems).

• Utilization of an ecological or “One Health”
approach to disease, rather than a simplistic “one
germ, one disease” approach to provide a richer
understanding of human, animal and environment
health links.
•

High biosecurity of all industrial and intensive
animal and plant agriculture, and more judicious
or prudent use of antimicrobial agents in both
human and animal medicine and food production
systems to reduce selection pressure for evolution
of resistant strains.

•

More resilient diverse agriculture and
sustainable harvesting systems. In the case of the
latter some species are high risk for pathogens
and should not be included in the human diet,
e.g. non-human primates given their high
genetic relatedness to humans (additionally, they
constitute an unsustainable protein source). For
example, the origin of the 2014 human Ebola
outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo
was linked to the butchering of an infected

148 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

–

monkey. If non-human primates are hunted and
consumed, these activities should be accompanied
by intensive surveillance eﬀorts for early detection
and response to disease spill-over events.

Surveillance and risk prediction systems
can also support risk analysis. For example,
in Brazil, the Information System of Wildlife
of Oswaldo Cruz Foundation is designed
to use mathematical models to build alerts
of the occurrence of pathogens in wildlife
with potential human involvement, with the
participation of society and experts in mobile
technology. Additionally, the USAID Emerging
Pandemic Threats PREDICT programme has
conducted pathogen surveillance in wildlife
in 20 countries that are “hotspots” for disease
emergence and worked closely with health,
agriculture and environment ministries to
characterize risks and interpret findings
through a One Health approach (see case study
in Part III of this volume).

•

Advances in the identiﬁcation and modelling of
synthetic biological, ecological and anthropogenic
parameters that drive the emergence of wildlife
diseases, and analysis of risk mitigation strategies.

•

Prevention of harvesting for wildlife trade and/
or regulation for disease control in addition to
source population sustainability.

• Increased systems research to better
understand the mechanism of pathogen jumping
and evolution and the effects of community
composition, abundance, and other ecosystem
dynamics.

These measures and policies are largely outside
the competence levels of most human and
animal health systems, which in any case are
largely reactive. Policy and implementation
should involve a One Health approach to ensure
a politically, socially and economically acceptable
solution to the whole of society, and not to the
detriment of the environment.

•

Careful management of tourism in biodiverse
areas, in order to reduce risk of infection especially
where anthropophilic vectors occur (there
should also be measures in place to reduce the
possibility of introduction of pathogens into these
environments from people and domestic animals).

•

Development and support for the inclusion
of monitoring wildlife pathogens in national
programmes of surveillance in health, agriculture
and conservation.

•

– Risk analysis tools, such as the approaches
set forth in the OIE Guidelines on assessing risk
of non-native animals becoming invasive and the
OIE-IUCN Guidelines to disease risk analysis, can
provide qualitative and quantitative measures
of risk.

ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE

More proactive and integrated risk assessment
and analysis, to be informed and refined by
integrated infectious disease surveillance and
response measures. Analysis, monitoring and
management of infectious disease risks are
warranted for both potential conversion of natural
areas, as well as changing ecologies in urban areas
(e.g. proposed “greening” of cities, which may
change interactions between humans and other
species). Some approaches that can be leveraged
include:

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 149

MARIANA CERATTI / WORLD BANK PHOTO

8. Environmental microbial diversity
and noncommunicable diseases
1. Introduction
Many countries worldwide, particularly in their
urban centres, have undergone large increases
in the incidences of chronic inflammatory
disorders such as allergies, autoimmune diseases
and inﬂammatory bowel diseases (Bach 2002),
all of which are at least partly disorders of
immunoregulation, where the immune system
is attacking inappropriate targets (harmless
allergens, self and gut contents respectively).
Similar increases in these noncommunicable
diseases (NCDs) are now occurring in emerging
and urbanising economies.
There is also an increase in diseases associated
with another consequence of disturbed
immunoregulation: long-term background
inﬂammation manifested as persistently raised
C-reactive protein (CRP) in the absence of
detectable medical cause. This is common in
high-income countries, and is associated with
cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome,
insulin resistance, obesity (Goldberg 2009;
Shoelson et al. 2007) and depression (Rook et
al. 2014b; Valkanova et al. 2013). Finally, some
cancers that are increasing in prevalence are also
associated with poorly controlled inﬂammation
(e.g. cancer of the colorectum, breast, prostate,
classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma and acute lymphatic
leukaemia of childhood) (Rook and Dalgleish
2011; von Hertzen et al. 2011b).

The purpose of this section is to explore the
relationship between these worrying disease
trends, and defective immunoregulation
attributable to diminishing microbial biodiversity.

2. The ‘hygiene hypothesis’: the
updated concept
The expression ‘hygiene hypothesis’ emerged
in 1989 and since then has had wide, often
misleading, media appeal (Strachan 1989). The
problem has been that although based on a crucial
underlying insight (that microbial experience
modulates our immune systems) it was initially
interpreted narrowly in the context of allergic
disorders, and there was a tendency to assume that
the relevant microbes were the common infections
of childhood (Dunder et al. 2007; Strachan 1989).
However, the concept has broadened so that it is
now a fundamental component of Darwinian (or
evolutionary) medicine, with implications for
essentially all aspects of human health (Rook et
al. 2014b). The allergic disorders are only a part
of the story, and neither hygiene nor the common
childhood infections necessarily play an important
role. For this reason, more recent terminology
now employs terms such as the biodiversity
hypothesis (von Hertzen et al. 2011a) or the Old
Friends mechanism (Rook et al. 2014b) to refer to
situations where changing patterns of microbial
exposure, in concert with changing diets, are

150 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

contributing to diminished immunoregulation,
and to increased incidences of immunoregulatory
disorders.
Earlier controversy surrounding this topic may be
considerably reduced when the diﬀering roles of
major functional and evolutionary categories of
organism are taken into account.

Some soil spore-formers germinate and replicate
in the human gut (Hong et al. 2009). Horizonal
gene transfer from environmental microbiota
to symbiotic microbiota has been documented,
although transfer between microbiota where
donor and recipient both inhabit the gut is more
common (Smillie et al. 2011).

å ,he z;roOd{ infe;tions parti;ularlQ
;oEEon Nirus infe;tions of ;hildhood

2.1 Categories of organisms
1 ,he z'ld{ infe;tions
Co-evolved with humans (Comas et al. 2013;
Linz et al. 2007; Wolfe et al. 2007). Modulate
the immune system so they can persist for life in
small hunter-gatherer groups without killing the
host, or being eliminated by the immune system.
Progressively eliminated by modern medicine
(Helicobacter pylori, blood and gut helminths etc.).
Known to regulate the immune system and to act
as ‘Treg adjuvants’: they encourage development
of the regulatory T lymphocytes (Treg) that
regulate the immune system (Babu et al. 2006;
Correale and Farez 2013).

Recently acquired (after Neolithic revolution)
because they either kill or immunize, and so could
not evolve or persist in small hunter-gatherer
groups because a large enough population is
required for susceptible individuals to persist
(Wolfe et al. 2007). Therefore humans did not
co-evolve with them as down-regulators of the
immune system, and epidemiological studies have
conﬁrmed that the crowd infections do not protect
children from allergic disorders (Benn et al. 2004;
Bremner et al. 2008; Dunder et al. 2007) and in
fact often trigger them (Yoo et al. 2007).

ã +QEbioti; Ei;robiotas

Therefore, using this simple functional
classiﬁcation it is possible to make a number of
well-documented statements.

Co-evolved with humans. Loss of diversity in
modern urban settings, due to caesarean delivery,
lack of breast feeding, antibiotics (Rook et al.
2014b), and increasing uniformity of diet (Khoury
et al. 2014; Thorburn et al. 2014). Known to
drive development and regulation of the immune
system (Round and Mazmanian 2010).

i) The Old infections and the commensal
microbiotas (as well as their supplements, as yet
poorly deﬁned, from animals and the environment)
have potent immunoregulatory eﬀects with wellstudied and documented molecular pathways,
summarized in the next section (reviewed in Rook
et al. 2014b).

3 +uppleEents to the sQEbioti;
Ei;robiotas froE the natural
enNironEent

ii) The Old infections are rapidly and progressively
eliminated by modern medicine and lifestyles.

Major diﬀerences exist between hunter-gatherer,
traditional rural and urban gut microbiotas (De
Filippo et al. 2010; Yatsunenko et al. 2012). In
an experimental model, exposure to the outdoor
environment increased ﬁrmicutes, particularly
lactobacilli (which produce short-chain fatty acids
that have anti-inﬂammatory eﬀects), whereas
rearing in the indoor environment led to increased
expression of inﬂammatory molecules in the gut
epithelium (Lewis et al. 2012; Mulder et al. 2009).

iii) The biodiversity of the microbiotas is restricted
by the modern lifestyle.
iv) Exposure to the Crowd infections should be
avoided rather than promoted.
Therefore, depletion of categories 1), 2) and 3) is
relevant to changes in regulation of the human
immune system, whereas depletion of category
4) has not occurred in urban populations (except
where an eﬃcient vaccine has been deployed)

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 151

and is in any case not associated with changes
in immunoregulatory circuits. Indeed, these
infections often act as triggers of allergy or
autoimmunity (Yoo et al. 2007). The original
formulation of the hygiene hypothesis focused
attention on the crowd infections, but this was
an error, and the protection against allergic
disorders attributed to the presence of older
siblings (Strachan 1989), and assumed by many at
that time to be a protective eﬀect of the childhood
virus infections, is now attributed to enhanced
transmission of microbiota (Penders et al. 2013).

2.2 Lifestyle factors that reduce
exposure to microbial biodiversity
While modern medicine tends to eliminate the
Old infections, lifestyle factors in high-income
urban settings reduce exposure both to maternal
microbiota and to organisms from the natural
environment (categories 2 and 3 above). Delivery
by caesarean section, lack of breast feeding and
excessive use of antibiotics in early childhood all
delay, reduce or modify accumulation of essential
microbiota (reviewed referenced in Rook et al.
2014a). The protective eﬀect of cleaning a child’s
dummy/paciﬁer by sucking it, and immediately
replacing it in the baby’s mouth is an elegant
illustration of the need for trans-generational
transmission of microbiota (Hesselmar et
al. 2013).

2.3 Links to socioeconomic status (SES)
The factors mentioned in the previous paragraph
might be exacerbated in families of low SES, who
tend to eat unvaried fast-food diets and more
highly processed foods that lack any trace of soil
and its microbes, whose homes are less likely to
include gardens, and who lack access to travel,
overseas holidays and rural second homes (Rook
et al. 2013).

2.4 Immunoregulatory pathways driven
by organisms of categories 1, 2 and 3
The immune system is potentially dangerous if
it attacks inappropriate targets such as harmless
allergens in air or food, the host’s own tissues, or
essential gut microbiota. When these three types of

inappropriate immune response occur they result
in allergy, autoimmune disease or inﬂammatory
bowel disease respectively. The immune system
has a number of complex mechanisms, known
collectively as immunoregulation, to suppress
unwanted responses. While a full exploration of
this topic falls outside the scope of this chapter, it
is important to note that the immunoregulatory
eﬀects of categories 1, 2 and 3 are well documented.
Old infections (such as helminths) have been
shown to drive immunoregulation in humans
(Babu et al. 2006; Correale and Farez 2013), and
to block or treat animal models of numerous
chronic inflammatory conditions (reviewed
in Osada and Kanazawa 2010). Molecular
structures responsible for immunoregulation are
being identiﬁed (Grainger et al. 2010; Harnett
et al. 2010; Kron et al. 2012). Regulatory T cells
(Treg), provide one important immunoregulatory
mechanism. When Argentinian multiple sclerosis
(MS) patients become infected with helminths,
the disease stops progressing and circulating
myelin-recognising regulatory T cells (Treg)
appear in the peripheral blood (Correale and Farez
2007), indicating that the helminths act as Treg
adjuvants. Thus some helminths can be shown to
speciﬁcally expand Treg populations (Grainger et
al. 2010), or to cause dendritic cells (DC) to switch
to regulatory phenotypes that preferentially drive
immunoregulation (Hang et al. 2010; Smits et
al. 2005).
Gut bacteria are also able to do this. A
polysaccharide from Bacteroides fragilis, commonly
present in the human gut, can expand Treg
populations (Round and Mazmanian 2010), as
can some members of clusters IV and XIVa of the
genus Clostridium (Atarashi et al. 2011), some
lactobacilli (Poutahidis et al. 2013), and very
probably unidentiﬁed organisms from the natural
environment, discussed later (Lewis et al. 2012).
Some of these eﬀects are mediated via short chain
fatty acids (SCFA) that act on G-protein-coupled
receptors (GPCR) (Thorburn et al. 2014). SCFA are
generated by microbiota that ferment dietary ﬁbre.
It seems unlikely that we will want to bring
back all the Old infections, unless we create a
‘domesticated’, perhaps genetically modified

152 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

helminth that could be administered to all children
(Parker and Ollerton 2013). On the other hand we
should be able to compensate for loss of the Old
infections by optimizing exposure to categories
2) and 3) the microbiotas and their supplements
from the natural environment. From a medical
point of view the question is whether we can
compensate for loss of the Old infections and
depletion of our microbiotas by restoring those
microbiotas and restoring inputs from a carefully
maintained and biodiverse natural environment.

3. Commensal microbiotas and
environmental biodiversity
From a biological perspective, humans are not
individuals. We are ecosystems. Up to 90% of our
cells are microbial, and the various microbiotas,
particularly the gut microbiota, contain at least
100 times more genes than does our human
genome (Wikoff et al. 2009). Consequently,
approximately 30% of our metabolome (small
molecules circulating in the blood) are products
of enzymatic processes encoded in microbial DNA
rather than in the human genome (Wikoﬀ et al.
2009). We now know that the microbiotas play
a role in virtually all aspects of our physiology,
in addition to priming the immune system and
its immunoregulatory pathways as described in
the previous section. While there is no such thing
as a germ-free human, work in experimental
animals has revealed that the microbiota inﬂuence
development of the brain, hypothalamo-pituitaryadrenal axis (HPA), gut, bones etc. (Gilbert et al.
2012; McFall-Ngai et al. 2013). The microbiota
also inﬂuences energy retrieval from food sources
and the likelihood of obesity, cardiovascular
disease, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes
(Tremaroli and Backhed 2012). In animals, the
microbiota modulate brain development and
responses to psychosocial stressors (Bailey et al.
2011; Heijtz et al. 2011), and human experiments
have shown that the gut microbiota inﬂuences
aspects of cognition involved in human emotion
and sensation (Tillisch et al. 2013). This ﬁnding
may have significant implications for better
understanding mental health, and attempts
to treat psychiatric states by modulating the

microbiota are beginning to be published
(Messaoudi et al. 2011).
Therefore, in the context of this chapter, crucial
questions are: 1) are the human microbiotas losing
biodiversity? And, if so: 2) To what extent is reduced
biodiversity of human microbiotas a consequence
of changes in the biodiversity of the environment
in which we live? 3) What are the implications for
human health?

4. Loss of biodiversity:
consequences for human health
Reduced gut microbial biodiversity is often found
to associate with poor control of inﬂammation.
Mice with lower microbial diversity have more
biomarkers of inﬂammation (Hildebrand et al.
2013). Gut microbiota of limited diversity is also
characteristic of human inﬂammation-associated
conditions such as obesity and inﬂammatory
bowel disease (Rehman et al. 2010; Turnbaugh
et al. 2009). Similarly, diminished microbiota
biodiversity in institutionalized elderly people
correlates with diminished health and raised
levels of peripheral inﬂammatory markers such
as interleukin 6 (IL-6) (Claesson et al. 2012).
The same is probably true for skin disorders
(Zeeuwen et al. 2013). There is an abnormal
microbiota and reduced diversity on skin subject
to eczema, with a tendency to return to greater
diversity following effective treatment (Kong
et al. 2012), and similar ﬁndings in psoriasis
(Fahlen et al. 2012). It has been suggested that
throughout human evolution the skin microbiota
have included ammonia-oxidising bacteria (AOB)
that would help to explain the presence of large
quantities of ammonia and nitrate in human
sweat (Whitlock and Feelisch 2009). The AOB
convert this to rapidly absorbed nitrite and nitric
oxide (NO) that regulates blood pressure and
the immune system. AOB are very sensitive to
triclosan and alkylbenzene sulfonate detergents,
so they are absent from human skin in modern
high-income settings.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 153

Further information and references on some
of the conditions listed in this paragraph are
described below.

4.1 To what extent is reduced
biodiversity of human microbiota
a consequence of changes in the
biodiversity of the environment in
which we live?

Exposure of the pregnant mother or infant to
the farming environment protects the child
against allergic disorders and juvenile forms of
inﬂammatory bowel disease (Radon et al. 2007;
Riedler et al. 2001; Timm et al. 2014). This
protection appears to be at least partly attributable
to airborne microbial biodiversity assayed in
children’s bedrooms (Ege et al. 2011). Similarly
mere proximity to agricultural land rather than to
urban agglomerations increased the biodiversity
of skin microbiota, reduced atopic sensitization
and increased release by blood cells of IL-10, an
anti-inﬂammatory mediator (Hanski et al. 2012).

å.1.ã FarE aniEals and do?s
Some of the relevant microbiota come from
animals. Contact with cows and pigs protects
against allergic disorders (Riedler et al. 2001;
Sozanska et al. 2013). Contact with dogs, with
which humans have co-evolved for many millennia
(Axelsson et al. 2013; Thalmann et al. 2013), also
protects from allergic disorders (Aichbhaumik et
al. 2008; Ownby et al. 2002), and people share
their microbiota via dogs (Song et al. 2013), which
also greatly increase the microbial biodiversity of
the home (Dunn et al. 2013; Fujimura et al. 2010).
Exposure to high levels of bacterial and fungal

CHRISSY BISCH / FLICKR

Humans and other mammals obtain much of their
microbiota from their mothers during delivery,
and via breast milk (which is not sterile) and
from family members. However many, probably
all animal species (including humans), obtain
components of their microbiota from soil (Mulder
et al. 2011; Troyer 1984). It is an interesting
possibility that geophagy (the eating of earth)
by babies and infants is an evolved strategy for
the uptake of soil organisms. This is manifested
as the ‘oral’ phase, when all babies put whatever
they can reach into their mouths. The quantities
of soil and faecal matter that can be ingested by
human babies with access to these materials (for
example in an African village) are astonishing
(Ngure et al. 2013). Circumstantial evidence that
humans acquire important microbial biodiversity
from the environment comes from studies of the
eﬀects of contact with farms, animals, and green
spaces discussed below.

å.1.1 ealth beneÍts of exposure to
farEs and farEland

154 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

components in house dust was associated with
diminished risk of atopy (the tendency to develop
allergic sensitisation to environmental allergens)
and wheeze, though the origins of the organisms
was not ascertained (Karvonen et al. 2014; Lynch
et al. 2014). In a developing country, the presence
of animal faeces in the home correlated with
better ability to control background inﬂammation
(CRP levels) in adulthood (McDade et al. 2012b),
and in Russian Karelia (where the prevalence
of childhood atopy is 4 times lower, and type 1
diabetes is 6 times lower than in Finnish Karelia),
house dust contained a 7-fold higher number
of clones of animal-associated species than was
present in Finnish Karelian house dust (Pakarinen
et al. 2008).

å.1.3 reen spa;e
Living close to green spaces reduces overall
mortality, cardiovascular disease, and depressive
symptoms, and increases subjective feelings of
well-being (Aspinall et al. 2013; Dadvand et al.
2012; Maas et al. 2006; Mitchell and Popham
2008). This health beneﬁt has been attributed
to multiple factors including exercise, exposure
to sunlight and psychological eﬀects. A detailed
review and critique of these explanations has
been published elsewhere (Rook 2013). Recent
work suggests that the health beneﬁts are not
attributable to exercise alone (Lachowycz and
Jones 2014; Maas et al. 2008), and in light of
the clear-cut observations on exposure to farms
and animals, exposure to diverse environmental
microbiota is becoming the most likely explanation.
For example, the gut microbiota of United States
citizens is diﬀerent from that of Amerindian
hunter-gatherers and Malawian rural farmers,
and strikingly less biodiverse (Yatsunenko et al.
2012). Particularly relevant experiments have
been performed with piglets, showing that when
maintained with the sow in a ﬁeld they developed
a characteristic gut microbiota rich in Firmicutes,
particularly Lactobacilli. On the other hand similar
piglets maintained with the sow on the same diet,
but in a clean indoor environment developed a gut
microbiota that was deﬁcient in Firmicutes, and
biopsies of the gut epithelium revealed increased
expression of inﬂammatory genes such as Type 1

interferon and major histocompatibility complex
class I (Mulder et al. 2009). Moreover, the piglets
deprived of environmental exposure had reduced
numbers of regulatory T cells and a predisposition
to making antibody following introduction of a
novel food (Lewis et al. 2012). This represents
an elegant model of the way that human babies
are reared in high-income settings with minimal
contact with environmental biodiversity, and
parallels the rising incidence of food allergies and
other immunoregulatory abnormalities in such
babies.
Thus the natural environment supplements
and modulates the microbiota in a way that
is relevant to regulation of the immune
system. This area is currently under-investigated,
particularly the role of spore-forming bacteria
that are usually considered to be soil organisms,
but which can germinate and replicate in the
human gut (Hong et al. 2009; discussed and
referenced in Rook et al. 2014b). It is important
to note that we do not currently know how
much of the human microbiota is derived from
the microbial environment, though work on this
point is in progress, and the overlaps between
gut and root microbiotas have been discussed
(Ramirez-Puebla et al. 2013). However it has been
demonstrated that germ-free mice can develop a
functioning gut microbiota following exposure to
microbial communities from soil, and from other
environmental sources, though these organisms
get displaced by more mouse-adapted strains
when co-housed with mice carrying normal mouse
microbiota (Seedorf et al. 2014). A recent study,
using novel computational strategies was able to
assemble the complete genome of 238 intestinal
bacteria, 76% of which were previously unknown
(Nielsen et al. 2014).  Similar methods have not,
to our knowledge at the time of publication,
been applied to the microbiota of the natural
environment.

å.1.å FerEented foods and beNera?es
Fermentation of vegetables (Breidt et al. 2013;
Swain et al. 2014), meat (Leroy et al. 2013) and
beverages (McGovern et al. 2004) was another
source of human intake of microbiota from the

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 155

environment. Chemical analyses of residues in
pottery reveal that some of these methods were
in use at least 9000 years ago (McGovern et al.
2004) and probably a great deal earlier (McGovern
2009). A mutation in alcohol dehydrogenase 4
that increased the eﬃciency of alcohol metabolism
appears to have arisen in distant ancestors of
mankind about 10 million years ago, perhaps
triggered by consumption of fruit that had
fermented after falling to the ground (Carrigan et
al. 2014). Lactic fermentation of vegetables (e.g.
sauerkraut, kimchi, gundruk, khalpi, sinki etc)
or of meat (for example the Eskimo fermented
ﬁsh, walrus, sea lion and whale ﬂippers, beaver
tails, animal oils and birds) adds nutritional and
microbiological diversity to the diet (Leroy et
al. 2013; Selhub et al. 2014; Swain et al. 2014).
Fermentation increases the content of vitamins,
lactoferrin, bioactive peptides and phytochemicals
such as ﬂavonoids which may in turn modulate
our own intestinal microbiota (Lu et al. 2013). The
increasing interest in modern fermented foods,
and in sourcing new probiotics from fermentation
processes and from the environment is exploiting
the fact that human metabolism has evolved in
the presence of such organisms and might have
developed a need for their presence.

4.1.5 Horizontal gene transfer
In addition to exchange of whole organisms with
animals and the natural environment, we need to
consider horizontal gene transfer (HGT) (Smillie
et al. 2011). This is common between bacteria and
recent work has revealed the existence of a global
network of HGT between members of the human
microbiota, even between phylogenetically very
divergent bacteria separated by billions of years
of evolution. Exchange was related to similarity
of ecology rather than phylogeny. Examples
include the horizontal transfer of genes encoding
the antibiotic resistome from soil microbes
(Forsberg et al. 2012). This is worrying because
huge increases in antibiotic resistance genes are
being detected in the microbiota of farm waste as
a result of antibiotic use in animal husbandry (Zhu
et al. 2013). However HGT also plays essential
beneficial roles. Consumption of seaweed by
Japanese people induces horizontal transfer to

their microbiota from environmental microbes
of genes that enable the catabolism of novel
seaweed-associated carbohydrates (Hehemann
et al. 2012). Thus the adaptability of the human
microbiota depends upon appropriate contact
with potential sources of genetic innovation
and diversity, and might therefore be threatened
by loss of biodiversity in the gene reservoir of
environmental microbes.

4.2 Life history plasticity, and
microbiota as epigenetic inheritance
Evolutionary biologists consider that life-history
variables (such as litter size, birth weight, age at
sexual maturity, adult weight and height) can be
crucial developmental adaptations to a changing
environment. However these life history variables
can change stepwise over several generations
even when the driving environmental change
remains constant after it has ﬁrst occurred (Price
et al. 1999; Wells and Stock 2011). For example,
improved nutrition in a colony of macaques
led to progressive increases in female adult
weight (and to increases in the birth weights of
oﬀspring) over 5 generations (Price et al. 1999).
How is this mediated? Clearly a given genotype
would be expected to yield a ﬁxed phenotype
under fixed conditions. Therefore epigenetic
and developmental mechanisms are usually
invoked to explain these generational eﬀects.
Such explanations are made more convincing
when the microbiota are considered as part
of the epigenetic inheritance of the infant.
(Interestingly some products of the microbiota
exert anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting
histone deacetylases (HDACs), so the microbiota is
directly involved in epigenetic immunoregulation
(Thorburn et al. 2014)). Dietary eﬀects will alter
the microbiota, which when passed on to the next
generation will programme the immune system
so that it is diﬀerent from that of the mother,
and that immune system will then interact with
further environmentally-driven changes to the
microbiota.

156 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

4.ã.1 etriEental Ei;robiota in
unhealthQ buildings

5.1.1 'besitQ Eetaboli; sQndroEe and
tQpe ã diabetes.

The previous paragraphs emphasise that humans
evolved in a natural environment and in contact
with animals. Until recently even our homes
were constructed with timber, mud, animal hair,
animal dung, thatch and other natural products,
and ventilated by outside air. By contrast, modern
buildings are constructed with synthetic materials,
plastics and concrete, while the timber and
cardboard are treated with adhesives and biocides,
and ventilated by air conditioning systems. When
these modern structures degrade, or become
damp, or accumulate condensation in cavity walls,
they do not become colonized with the bacterial
strains with which we co-evolved. They harbour a
low biodiversity, and become habitats for unusual
strains that we did not encounter during our
evolutionary history, some of which synthesise
toxic molecules that we are unable to inactivate
(Andersson et al. 1998; Sahlberg et al. 2010).
Some examples of “sick building syndrome” have
been tentatively attributed to prolonged exposure
to these inappropriate airborne microbiota
(Andersson et al. 1998; Sahlberg et al. 2010).

The gut microbiota of lean and obese human
individuals diﬀer, and can transfer the tendency
to leanness or adiposity to germ-free mice
maintained on a standard diet (Turnbaugh et
al. 2006). The mechanisms by which microbiota
inﬂuence adiposity have been reviewed (Karlsson
et al. 2013). They include eﬀects on eﬃciency of
energy harvest from ingested food, and complex
eﬀects on the function of the body fat-regulatory
circuits that involve the central nervous system,
leptin, neuropeptide Y, proglucagon and brainderived neurotrophic factor (Schele et al. 2013a;
Schele et al. 2013b). Some of these neuroendocrine
phenomena may be secondary to central nervous
system eﬀects of inﬂammatory mediators such
as IL-1 and IL-6 (Schele et al. 2013a), and indeed
chronic inflammation contributes to insulin
resistance and obesity via several pathways
(Shoelson et al. 2007). Anti-inflammatory
Foxp3+ regulatory T cells (Treg) in abdominal fat
control the inﬂammatory state of adipose tissue,
and the abundance of Treg in abdominal fat is
inversely related to insulin resistance (Feuerer et
al. 2009). A diet of western fast food aggravates
the immunoregulatory deﬁcit, promotes a low
ratio of Treg to Th17 cells (pro-inﬂammatory),
and drives abdominal adiposity in humans and
mice (Poutahidis et al. 2013). This diet was shown
epidemiologically to lead to obesity (Mozaﬀarian
et al. 2011). Fatty diets and the accompanying
dysbiosis can also increase gut leakiness and so
increase uptake of pro-inﬂammatory products
such as endotoxin (Cani et al. 2008).

5. Commensal microbiota and
noncommunicable diseases
As outlined above, as societies become westernized
and urbanized, there are striking increases in
chronic inﬂammatory disorders (autoimmunity,
allergies and inﬂammatory bowel diseases (IBD))
that are at least partly attributable to defective
immunoregulation, in which the gut microbiota
plays a major role (reviewed in Rook et al. 2014b).
Most of the epidemiological evidence applies to
these three groups of conditions, covered in the
previous paragraphs.
However other major health problems rise in
parallel with the classic trio of chronic inﬂammatory
disorders already mentioned (autoimmunity,
allergies and IBD), and in these conditions also
there are reasons for implicating the microbiota,
the environment and immunoregulation.

The adipogenic and pro-inﬂammatory eﬀects of
the western fast food diet can be opposed by a
probiotic (Lactobacillus reuteri) via a pathway that
depends on the simultaneous presence of a normal
gut microbiota, and is mediated by Treg (Poutahidis
et al. 2013). (Interestingly, some strains of L. reuteri
used in human food production might be derived
from mouse gut microbiota (Su et al. 2012)). Thus
the nature and diversity of the gut microbiota,
together with the poorly documented inputs of
microorganisms from the natural environment,
may have multiple metabolic, neuroendocrine and
immune-mediated eﬀects on obesity, metabolic

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 157

syndrome and insulin resistance, which are all
major problems of our time.

5.1.ã an;ers asso;iated Oith poorlQ
regulated inÎaEEation
The incidence of a number of cancers also
increases in high-income urbanized settings in
parallel with the chronic inﬂammatory disorders.
These include cancer of the colorectum, breast
and prostate, classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma and
acute lymphatic leukaemia of childhood (Rook
and Dalgleish 2011; von Hertzen et al. 2011b).
Inﬂammation can enhance mutation (Colotta et
al. 2009) and so play a role in carcinogenesis, but
‘smouldering’ inﬂammation that is not obviously
related to any external inﬂammatory stimulus
is common in tumours (Porta et al. 2009) and
releases growth factors and angiogenic factors
that enhance growth, vascularization and
metastasis (Balkwill 2009; O’Byrne et al. 2000;
Porta et al. 2009). Interestingly non-steroidal antiinﬂammatory agents, such as cycloxygenase-2
(COX-2) inhibitors, reduce the risk of developing
colon and breast cancer and reduce the mortality
caused by them (Cuzick et al. 2009).
The epidemiology of the cancers that increase in
high-income settings is strikingly similar to that of
the chronic inﬂammatory disorders. For instance,
age-speciﬁc incidence rates for speciﬁc cancers
in Asians correlate with the state of economic
development of their country of residence.
Incidences are much lower in Asians living in India
compared to those living in the United Kingdom
or United States (Rastogi et al. 2008). Another
example is acute lymphatic leukaemia, which
shows striking parallels with the epidemiological
ﬁndings that gave rise to the original version of
the hygiene hypothesis (Greaves 2006; Strachan
1989). A study in northern California provided
preliminary evidence that protection from acute
lymphatic leukaemia is proportional to the number
and frequency of social contacts (Ma et al. 2002).
A large population-based case-control study (The
UK Childhood Cancer Study (UKCCS)) revealed
further evidence that social contacts in infancy
can reduce the risk of childhood acute lymphatic
leukaemia (Gilham et al. 2005).

Animal models have cast much light on the
links between environmental organisms,
immunoregulation, inflammation and cancer
(Erdman et al. 2010). Inflammatory signals
from bacteria in the gut can trigger mammary,
colorectal and prostate cancers in mice (Erdman
et al. 2010; Lakritz et al. 2014). Tumourigenesis
can be attenuated by immunoregulatory pathways
triggered by appropriate Treg-inducing organisms
(Erdman et al. 2010). For example, in two diﬀerent
mouse models (one genetic, and one dietary)
mammary carcinogenesis was inhibited by
exposure to Lactobacillus reuteri. The mechanism
was found to be the induction of CD25+Foxp3+
Treg (Lakritz et al. 2014).
Thus, although excessive immunoregulation might
be permissive for some cancers by decreasing
anti-tumour immunity, there is strong evidence
that faulty immunoregulation leading to chronic
background inﬂammation can provoke mutation
and tumourigenesis, and contribute growth factors
that favour tumour development, vascularization
and spread. Since the microbiota plays a major
role in immunoregulation and is supplemented
by organisms from the natural environment, it
is reasonable to postulate that changes to the
pool of environmental microorganisms have
consequences for the risk of such tumours.

5.2 Depression, reduced stress
resilience and poorly regulated
LQƪDPPDWLRQ
It is estimated that depression will become the
second major cause of human disability by 2030
(Mathers and Loncar 2006). Chronically raised
levels of inﬂammatory mediators are routinely
associated with risk of depression in high-income
countries (Dowlati et al. 2010; Gimeno et al.
2009; Howren et al. 2009; Rook et al. 2014b;
Valkanova et al. 2013), and the mechanisms have
been reviewed elsewhere (Miller et al. 2013).
It should be noted that clinical administration
of interferon alpha (IFN-a) commonly causes
depression as a side-eﬀect (Raison et al. 2009).
Interestingly, one study failed to ﬁnd a correlation
between depression and raised CRP in a low-/
middle-income country (McDade et al. 2012a).

158 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

In low-income settings, exposure to microbial
biodiversity is greater and inﬂammation is shut
oﬀ when episodes of infection are terminated, so
that chronic elevated biomarkers of inﬂammation
are not seen (McDade 2012). Thus decreasing
exposure to microbial biodiversity, by reducing the
eﬃciency of immunoregulatory circuits, is likely to
be contributing to the increases in depression, and
reduced stress resilience in high income settings
(Rook et al. 2013).

6. Ways forward: preliminary
recommendations for global and
sectoral policy
What are the practical implications of these
links between microbial exposures, microbial
biodiversity, regulation of the immune system,
and chronic inﬂammatory disorders?

6.1 Better understanding the links
between microbial diversity and health
Practical recommendations are hampered by
lack of precise information. Important areas for
further research include:
a.1) What are optimal compositions of the
microbiota? The physiological, metabolic and
immunoregulatory roles of the microbiota are
not in doubt, and constitute one of the most
rapidly expanding and exciting branches of
medical research. Nevertheless the techniques
used, despite rapid progress, remain imprecise
at the species level, and in most cases it is not
yet possible to reliably link particular microbial
species with health or illness. Even if we did
have this knowledge, we do not yet know how to
reliably bias the composition of the microbiota
in the desired direction. We also do not know
whether humans with diﬀerent genetics and

Box 1: lostridiuE diÏ;ile a practical example of modulating gut microbiota
A gastrointestinal disorder characterized by diarrhoea and pain, caused by overgrowth of
Clostridium diﬃcile in the colon, provides a remarkable clinical example of the crucial importance
of a correct balance of organisms within the gut microbiota, and illustrates practical ways of
correcting such imbalance. Many people carry small numbers of C. diﬃcile in their guts, but in
some individuals antibiotic use can lead to overgrowth of this species, and to potentially lifethreatening colitis aggravated by toxin production. (The same phenomenon is commonly seen
in antibiotic-treated pet guinea-pigs (Rothman 1981)). Recently it has been observed that faecal
microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an eﬀective treatment in about 90% of patients (Cammarota
et al. 2014). FMT involves administering faecal organisms from a normal donor (often a healthy
family member). FMT suppresses growth of C. diﬃcile and permits re-establishment of a normal
microbiota. FMT is also undergoing trials in IBD, irritable bowel syndrome, and other chronic
inﬂammatory conditions, though results remain variable (Borody et al. 2013).
Three important points need to be made here. First, as we learn more about the composition of
a healthy microbiota and develop better ways of driving appropriate stable modiﬁcations of the
microbiota, so our ability to treat diverse immunoregulatory and inﬂammatory disorders is likely
to increase: this might also involve use of organisms from the natural environment. Secondly, we
do not yet know whether people with diﬀerent genetic backgrounds, or eating diﬀerent diets, will
require a diﬀerent microbiota, though this is likely. Thirdly, as the number of conditions known to
be modulated by the microbiota increases, so the selection of donors becomes more diﬃcult. For
example the material outlined in previous sections implies in addition to screening the donors
for infections and load of C. diﬃcile, we need to be sure that the donor is not obese, or at risk for
cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, IBD, allergies or depression.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 159

diﬀerent diets require diﬀerent microbiotas,
although recent evidence suggests that this is
likely.
a.2) The nature of beneﬁcial organisms from the
natural environment. The mother, family members
and other people are major sources of microbiota,
but the epidemiological data presented above
provide powerful evidence to suggest that these
microbiota are supplemented by organisms (and
genes via horizontal gene transfer) from the
natural environment and from animals. However,
these organisms have not been formally identiﬁed.
Experimental work with piglets strongly supports
the view that the natural environment provides
organisms that drive immunoregulation and
suppress immune responses to novel foods, but
again, the organisms involved have not been
formally identiﬁed. This is a priority area for
research.

6.2 Mainstreaming across health- and
biodiversity-related sectors
It is diﬃcult to make clear recommendations
until the questions addressed in the previous
sub-section are better deﬁned. As such knowledge
increases we will be able to oﬀer more precise
guidance on some of the relevant issues listed
below.
b.1) Agricultural methods: Extensive
monoculture and chemical use will reduce
environmental biodiversity, and so reduce the
adaptability of the human microbiota, which
depends upon supplementation with organisms
from the environment, and contact with
potential sources of genetic innovation and
diversity. However the evidence that organic
farming increases biodiversity at the floral,
faunal (Schneider et al. 2014) and microbial level
is suggestive but incomplete and inconsistent
(Sugiyama et al. 2010). The use of antibiotics in
animal husbandry results in large increases in the
abundance of antibiotic resistance genes (Zhu et al.
2013). Not only is this inherently undesirable, but
is also likely to cause changes in the composition
of the microbiota.

b.2) Human behaviour; targeted hygiene: The
public should be taught the concept of ‘targeted’
hygiene. The sound bites generated by the ‘hygiene
hypothesis’ has led to erroneous media backing
for the notion that “we are too clean for our
own good”, despite the massive health beneﬁts
of hygiene. The public needs to understand, for
example, the difference between the dangers
of the gut microbiota of an uncooked chicken,
and the benefits of contact with maternal
microbiota, green spaces, animals and the natural
environment.
b.3) Antibiotics: There is strong evidence that
antibiotic use in childhood increases the risk of a
wide range of chronic inﬂammatory and metabolic
disorders in childhood and later life.
b.4) Health benefits of fermented foods/
traditional diets: Fermentation of vegetables,
meat, oils and beverages can be traced back
many millennia, as discussed in section 4.1.4.
The fermentation process adds nutrients and
microbiological diversity (Selhub et al. 2014). It
is likely that humans have evolved a requirement
for the fermenting organisms and their products,
and it is widely believed that these foods provide
health beneﬁts. Although the science is strongly
suggestive and most workers in the ﬁeld are
conﬁdent that fermented foods, probiotics and
prebiotics will one day play a role in treatment and
prevention of NCDs and inﬂammation-dependent
psychiatric diseases, clinical trial data with the
existing preparations have been inconsistent as
revealed in recent rigorous reviews (Frei et al.
2015; West et al. 2015). More eﬀort should be
made to ‘mine’ traditional fermentation processes
for novel probiotics before the diversity of strains
is lost (Swain et al. 2014), and clinical trials should
be more speciﬁcally targeted.
b.5) Food supplements: Food companies
potentially have a major role to play in this
endeavour. Too much testing of probiotics (and
prebiotics) has been conducted with unsuitable
organisms (and oligosaccharides) simply
because the company concerned has the relevant
intellectual property rights, or access to a bulk
manufacturer of the strain in question. Probiotics

160 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

KIBAE PARK / UNITED NATION PHOTO / FLICKR

have multiple modes of action. For example, when
immunoregulation is required, it is obviously
essential to test a probiotic that has that particular
property (Frei et al. 2015), rather than a strain
that acts by blocking an ecological niche in the
gut and reducing pathogen access, however useful
this property might be in other contexts. Some
probiotics based on the spores of environmental
Bacillus species are also marketed for human and
animal use, but we are not aware of any systematic
attempt to identify other relevant environmental
organisms (as pointed out in a.2 above), though
such work is in progress.
b.6) Design of cities: The realization that much
of the health benefit of green spaces is not
attributable to exercise alone and is likely to be due
to exposure to microbial biodiversity leads to the
possibility that not all green spaces need to be large
parks appropriate for team sports. Multiple, small,
high quality green spaces, designed to harbour
the optimal fauna, flora and accompanying
microbiota, might provide a major health beneﬁt.
These could include roof gardens, vegetated
walls, grass verges etc. In London, environmental
engineers have created “edible bus stops”, which
are small community gardens often located at

bus stops where people congregate (http://www.
theediblebusstop.org/). These projects are mostly
driven by aesthetic considerations, whereas we
now have medical reasons for supporting and
amplifying such movements. This concept will
again be facilitated when we have clear answers
to question a.2) outlined above; what is the
optimal ﬂora to plant? How do we encourage the
organisms that we want? It is worrying that use of
water supplies contaminated with antibiotics on
city parkland is changing the pattern of antibiotic
resistance genes in the local soil, and so inevitably
distorting the natural microbiota of these urban
green spaces (Wang et al. 2014).
b.7) Interdisciplinary publications and media
attention: The health world concentrates
its reading, research and publications in
medically-orientated journals while ecologists,
environmental engineers, soil scientists and
city planners disseminate their information
in quite diﬀerent ways. We need to encourage
cross-disciplinary media attention and review
publications.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 161

6.3 Giving policy-makers an idea of
tools available
An important consideration for policy-makers is
that our knowledge of the microbiome is changing
extremely rapidly, but the tools to perform these
analyses and their limitations are also changing
very rapidly. It is therefore a substantial risk that
technologies or ﬁndings will be adopted before they
are robust, leading to unstable conclusions, but at
the same time a risk that powerful technologies of
ﬁndings that could have large impact on people’s
lives will not be deployed in a timely fashion. This
section describes some of these considerations.

ç.3.1 ssessEent
There is need for interdisciplinary studies, where
epidemiologists work closely with microbiologists
studying the microbiota of the environment
(plants and soil), transport systems, homes,
oﬃces and public buildings. We already know
that microbial biodiversity in a child’s bedroom
correlates with reduced risk of asthma and
atopy (Ege et al. 2011). It will be important to
extend such studies to other situations. For
example, how does the microbial biodiversity of
an underground train line (subway) that never
runs above ground, compare with that of a line
that is sometimes above ground (e.g. respectively,
the Victoria and Piccadilly lines in London)? Are
there detectable diﬀerences in the proportion of
organisms from the natural environment? Are
there detectable inﬂuences on the health of the
passengers? Unfortunately transport companies
and organisations are extremely unwilling to allow
such investigations. Can we make the technology
cheap enough and develop a robust enough
database that individual families are willing and
able to perform microbial tests of their homes,
as they may already be doing when concerned
about fungi? Can relevant governmental entities
play an important role by facilitating rather than
obstructing the study of public buildings and the
eﬀects of features of their microbiology on the
health of their inhabitants or visitors?

Methods available

also easy to collect. Questionnaires suitable
for assessing health, disease prevalence and
mental state are well validated. The progress in
developing DNA sequencing and bioinformatic
techniques has been rapid, and the microbial
composition of any sample can be determined.
Thus it is possible to couple disease epidemiology
with biodiversity measurements. Similarly highsensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) assays are easy
to perform and give a good measure of background
inﬂammation levels. At present, most studies
have focused on bacteria, although the viruses,
fungi and microbial eukaryotes in general are
also important components of the microbiota
and are becoming increasingly feasible to assay.
Similarly, most studies have focused on marker
genes such as the 16S ribosomal RNA gene, which
provide very eﬃcient readouts of who is present
in an environment, but assays such as shotgun
metagenomics (which identiﬁes all genes present in
a given sample) or metabolomics (which identiﬁes
chemicals including those produced by microbial
metabolism) are increasingly approachable and
may provide a much richer picture. However,
techniques that carry a risk of sequencing human
DNA found in a given environment must be used
with more caution in relation to human research
ethics.
Appropriate environmental measurements to
correlate with the human microbiota and health
data include:
1) Assessment of airborne microbial biodiversity,
perhaps including fungal and viral diversity.
In general, outdoor air and indoor air differ
substantially from each other (Kembel et al.
2012), and land use can also have a large eﬀect
on microbial sources in outdoor air (Bowers et al.
2011), with dog faeces being a substantial input
in cities under some circumstances (Bowers et al.
2011).
2) Assessment of microbial biodiversity of
homes and public places. Crowdsourcing can be
an eﬀective method for obtaining such samples,
especially given the high public interest in such
studies (Dunn et al. 2013).

Skin microbiota can be sampled by lightly pressing
a sterile swab on the skin. Faecal samples are

162 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

a) Traditional versus microbiota-damaging
building materials. Studies of the effects of
building materials on environmental microbes,
rather than on individual species of interest, are
still very much in their infancy but are urgently
needed.
b) Open windows versus air conditioning, and
propagation of microbes from open windows
through the rest of a building. Given increased
automation of window shades and/or tinting for
energy eﬃciency reasons, it may also be feasible
to automate window opening at temperatureappropriate times to facilitate microbial exchange
with the outdoors. It is also unknown whether
exposure to beneﬁcial microbes from the outdoors,
or lack of ongoing exposure to largely humanderived microbes trapped indoors, explains more
of the links between building microbes and human
health.
c) City zones with and without green spaces. If
green spaces have an eﬀect, the eﬀects of large
parks versus small high quality green spaces, and
the composition of trees, ﬂowers and grass should
also be assessed.
d) Dog parks, urban farms/petting zoos, and other
sources of human–animal contact.
Compare farming methods:
a) Mono- versus poly-culture: Is the diversity of
crops more or less important than which crop
species are present? Does diversity within a
species, e.g. growing multiple varieties of apples
together rather than a monoculture, important?
b) Organic versus intensive chemical use. The eﬀects
of agricultural chemicals, including herbicides and
pesticides, on leaf microbes or on soil microbes
that are known to be immunomodulatory in
humans are largely unknown.
c) Food in traditional farmers’ markets versus
modern supermarkets. These foods tend to vary

along several dimensions including production
methods, chemical inputs, amount of washing
and remaining soil, and duration of storage, all of
which likely aﬀect the microbes.

ç.3.ã /aQs forOard
Several remedies are also available from a
policy perspective. Most urgently needed are
global policies to preserve the biodiversity of
the natural environment. These would include
major restrictions on antibiotic misuse both in
human and agricultural settings and possibly
including antibiotic remediation of wastewater;
assessing the eﬀects of agricultural and building
practices on microbes, perhaps including microbial
biodiversity reserves in our houses, schools and
oﬃces, and identifying and preserving reservoirs
of human-associated microbes in hunter-gatherer
communities in Africa, Paciﬁc Islands and South
America, and ancestral reservoirs of microbes in
the Great Rift Valley that represent the microbial
heritage with which our species coevolved.
City planning and architectural designs that
optimize biodiversity of microbial exposure in
urban settings are also needed, including green
spaces, opportunities for contact with microbes
from wildlife and farm animals, and modiﬁed
air conditioning strategies that spread beneﬁcial
microbial diversity rather than Legionella. Finally, a
broad-scale education initiative, including citizenscience eﬀorts parallel to those employed by
American Gut (where members of the public can
both act as subjects and participate in an open data
analysis eﬀort) and MOOCs (massive open online
courses), as well as more traditional classroom and
online resources aimed at children, educators,
physicians, politicians, the press, advocacy
organizations, and members of the general public
will be needed both to communicate the results
obtained to date in this exciting ﬁeld and to lay
the groundwork for appropriate assimilation
and deployment of new ﬁndings in this rapidly
evolving ﬁeld.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 163

SHUTTERSTOCK

9. Biodiversity and
biomedical discovery
1. Introduction
The diversity of life on earth has been an engine
of biomedical discovery and sustained human
health for millennia, contributing to countless
medical advances. Ironically, in many instances,
the very organisms that have given humanity
vital insights into human diseases, or are the
sources of human medications, are endangered
with extinction because of human actions. While
other sources explore these subjects in detail
(see Chivian and Bernstein 2008), this chapter
brieﬂy explores the substantial contribution of
biodiversity to biomedical discovery, and discusses
key health challenges posed by accelerating rates
of biodiversity loss.

2. Why biodiversity matters to
medical discovery
Many of the diseases that aﬄicted or killed most
people a century ago are today largely curable
or preventable. How did this happen? Applying
scientiﬁc methods to medical research certainly
contributed to this development, as did the
engagement of many researchers and medical
professionals. However, no amount of scientiﬁc
rigour, researchers, or any other factor could
suﬃce on its own to reduce the human suﬀering
realized in the twentieth century, as many of these

developments depended, wholly or in part, on
biological diversity (Chivian and Bernstein 2008).
Antibiotics rank among the most significant
breakthroughs that have considerably improved
human health in the twentieth century. Death from
pneumonia was so prevalent in the early twentieth
century, for instance, that Sir William Osler
described it is as the “captain of the men of death”
(see, for example, Barry 2005). With the arrival
of penicillin and its descendants, rates of death
from pneumonia plummeted (see, for example,
Podolsky 2006). The penicillins as well as nine of
the thirteen other major classes of antibiotics in
use derive from microorganisms. Between 1981
and 2010, 75% (78 of 104) of the antibacterials
newly approved by the United States (US) Food
and Drug Administration can be traced back to
natural product origins (Newman and Cragg
2012). Percentages of antivirals and antiparasitics
derived from natural products approved during
that same period are similar or higher. The overand misuse of antibiotics has cultivated a slew of
highly resistant bacterial strains, which in some
instances cannot be eﬀectively treated with any
currently available antibiotic (Levy and Marshall
2004; Davies and Davies 2010). A race to ﬁnd
new antibiotics to overcome so-called superbugs
ensued (e.g. Spellberg et al. 2008). As of February
2014, at least 45 new antibiotics that carry the
potential to treat serious bacterial infections are in

164 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

development for use in the US. Most of these rely
upon a natural product predecessor (Pew Health
Initiatives 2014).
For as long as we know, humanity has relied upon
compounds from nature designed to treat what
ails us (see also the chapter on traditional medicine
in this volume). Otzi, the oldest known natural
mummy, who was found under a thawing glacier
in the Italian Alps, died more than 5000 years
ago and carried with him a pouch that contained
birch polypore fungus Piptoporus betulinus known
to reduce inﬂammation and kill bacteria (see,
for example, Bortenschlager and Oeggl 2000).
Reliance upon biodiversity for new drugs continues
to this day in most domains of medicine. More
than half of the 1355 newly approved drugs by the
US Food and Drug Administration between 1981
and 2010 had natural product origins (Newman
and Cragg 2012).
The success of drug development from natural
products manifests the common molecular
currency of life on earth.  Species as diverse as
Conus geographus, Penicillium citrinum and Taxus
brevifolia – a meat-eating marine snail, rice
fungus and boreal conifer – produce molecules
that in humans relieve pain, reduce cholesterol,
and treat breast, ovarian, lung and other cancers,
respectively, because organisms, as diverse as they
are, communicate within themselves and other
creatures using common molecular currencies
(Chivian and Bernstein 2008). As discussed in
the chapter on traditional medicine, this often
increases the appeal for bioprospecting for
medicines.¹
While most of the medicinal potential of nature
has yet to be tapped, we may be losing potential
new cures with biodiversity loss. One of several
examples is the two species of gastric brooding
frogs indigenous to the rainforests of Queensland,
Australia. These species employ perhaps the most
unusual reproductive strategies in the animal
kingdom, using their stomachs as wombs for their
young (Chivian and Bernstein 2008; McNeely
2006). Having gone extinct in the 1980s, their

unique reproductive physiology was lost with
them, which could have alleviated the suﬀering
of tens of millions of worldwide who have peptic
ulcer disease and related disorders.
Plants have been the single greatest source of
natural product drugs to date, and although an
estimated 400 000 plant species populate the
earth, only a fraction of these have been studied
for their pharmacological potential (Hostettmann
et al. 1998). For example, one of the largest plant
specimen banks, the natural products repository
at the National Cancer Institute, contains ~60 000
specimens (Beutler et al. 2012). The same number
of species – 60 000 – are thought to be used for
medicinal purposes worldwide and perhaps as
many as 40% of these species are considered
threatened with extinction (Biodiversity Indicators
Partnership 2010; CBD 2014; see also the chapter
on traditional medicines in this volume).
Plant species as diverse as the Himalayan yew,
Taxus wallichiana (and other Taxus spp.) or African
cherry, Prunus africana, long used in traditional
medicines, have been threatened by factors such
as overharvesting and international trade, driven
by high consumer demand (Hamilton 2003). Both
are listed under the Convention of International
Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna
(CITES). The establishment and enforcement of
eﬀective management and trade of wild-collected
species, both by governments and corporations,
remains a critical need in plant conservation (e.g.
Phelps et al. 2014).
Other realms of the living world, especially
the microbial and marine, are almost entirely
unstudied and hold vast potential for the
development of new drugs, given both their
diversity and the medicines already discovered
from them (Chivian and Bernstein 2008).

¹ For further discussion on marine bioprospecting see, for example, Hunt and Vincent (2006).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 165

Case study: plQsia ;aliforni;a and the human brain
Drugs derived from natural products may perhaps be the most direct and concrete bond that many
may nd between biodiversity and medicine. However, biodiversity holds much broader connections
with human health. In many arenas of biomedical inquiry, biodiversity has beenan invisible linchpin
of discovery. For example, of the 104 Nobel prizes in Medicine awarded since Emil von Behring
received the prizein 1901 for his research on guinea pigs to develop a treatment for diphtheria,
99 were given to scientists who either directly or indirectly made use of other species to do their
research.
In 2000, Eric Kandel shared the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine with Arvid Carlsson for his
groundbreaking research on memory. Kandel s research established, at a cellular and molecular
level, how our brains learn and form memories. He did not study human brains to do this. Instead,
he studied the nervous system of sea hares from the genus Aplysia. A human brain has about 86
billion neurons whereas Aplysia has, all told, around 20 000, and only about 100 of those neurons
are involved in memory. In addition, Aplysia’s memory cells are also among the largest of their
kind in the animal kingdom and can be visualized with the naked eye. This makes monitoring the
electrical messages that scurry across their membranes, and exploring how these messages may alter
genes and other molecules that control a neuron s inner workings, comparatively easy. With these
advantages, Kandel found what was di cult, if not impossible, otherwise. What was gleaned from
Aplysia’s nervous system made possible further research in other species, which has deepened our
understanding not only of learning and memory, but of a host of human ailments, from substance
abuse and Alzheimer disease to the lifelong consequences of early childhood trauma.
For more on research from Aplysia see: Kandel ER. (2007). In search of memory: the emergence of a
new science of mind. New ork, USA: WW Norton & Company.

GENEVIEVE ANDERSON

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Aplysia californica releasing ink that not only clouds predators’ view but masks their sense of smell
and taste.

166 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Case study: ,herEus aIuati;us and DNA research
Thermus aquaticus is another behind-the-scenes, though absolutely vital, species for biomedical
discovery. This bacterium was rst identi ed in the Mushroom Spring of ellowstone National Park
in 1966 as part of an expedition to nd life in places where it was not supposed to exist. The late
summer day that Thomas Brock and Hudson Freeze collected samples from Mushroom Spring, the
water temperature measured 69 ºC.
At rst, T. aquaticus was little more than a curiosity: an organism able to live at temperatures that
would cook most cells, including human cells. This reputation soon changed. Advances in the early
years of genetic research were many but were limited in part by di culties with replicating DNA in a
laboratory. All life replicates DNA in order to survive. To do this, paired strands of DNA are separated
and then copied using a specialized molecular copying machine known as DNA polymerase.
To separate the DNA strands, cells use a set of molecular machines. Using these machines in a
laboratory proved too di cult, so scientists turned to another method, heat. DNA strands reliably
separate at temperatures just over 90 ºC and remain separate at around 70 ºC, right near the optimal
temperature for T. aquaticus and its DNA polymerase known as Taq. The ability of Taq to copy DNA at
high temperature forms the foundation of the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, which is arguably
the single most important tool in genetic research ever invented. In 2013 alone, nearly 27 000
articles make reference to PCR in the US National Library of Medicine s PubMed database.
ust as with the ability of natural products obtained from one species to exert in uence on many
others, the ability of Taq to work on DNA from multiple species underscores how all life shares some
basic features. At the same time, Taq also speaks of the importance of the diversity of life. Without life
thriving at high temperatures, there would be no polymerase suitable for PCR and, without PCR, the
modern-day genetic research juggernaut may never have got o the ground.
Source: Brock and Freeze (1969)

3. Biodiversity, the microbiome
and antimicrobial resistance
Far greater than what individual species oﬀer
to medicine through molecules they contain
or traits they possess, an understanding of
biodiversity yields irreplaceable insights into how
life works, which bear upon current epidemic
diseases. Consider the multiple pandemics that
have resulted from antimicrobial or antibiotic
resistance (see also the chapters on infectious
disease and health care and pharmaceuticals in
this volume). Human medicine tends to use a
paradigm for treating infections unknown in
nature, which is treating one pathogen with one
antibiotic. Most multicellular life (and a good
share of single cellular life) produces compounds
with antibiotic properties but never uses them

in isolation. Infections are attacked, or more
often prevented, through the secretion of several
compounds at once.
Antibiotic use, aside from its potential to cultivate
resistance, also carries the potential to disrupt
relationships between hosts and their symbiotic
microbes. The human microbiome contains tenfold
more microorganisms than cells that comprise the
human body, and antibiotic use can dramatically
alter its composition and function (Cho and Blaser
2012). Although much of the microbiome and
its relationship to its host remains unknown, it
is already apparent that changes to the variety
and abundance of various microorganisms,
as can occur with antibiotic use, may affect
everything from the host’s weight and the risk of
contracting autoimmune disease, to susceptibility

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 167

JIM PEACO / US NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɼ Mushroom Spring in Yosemite National Park. In this sulphurous hot spring was discovered Thermus
aquaticus, the source of Taq polymerase, which serves as the essential cog in the polymerase chain reaction,
arguably the single most important method used in genetic research.

to infections (Petersen and Round 2014). The
microbiome may also shape mood and behaviour
(see also the chapter on microbial biodiversity
and noncommunicable diseases in this volume).
The inﬂuence of microorganisms on the larger
life forms they cohabit is not terribly surprising,
given the history of life on earth. Several billion
years elapsed between the appearance of the ﬁrst
single-celled creatures and multicellular life, and
single-celled creatures appear to have enmeshed
themselves with all their multicellular successors.

4. Future challenges: implications
of biodiversity loss for medical
discovery
In this time of technological advancement,
when the precision of measurement comes at
increasingly diminutive scales such as nanoseconds
or nanometers, and we begin to explore the most
minute forms of life on earth, we have at best a
ﬁrst approximation of the numbers of organisms
we share the planet with (May 1988; Mora et al.

2011; Costello et al. 2013). About 2 million of an
estimated 10 million species on earth have been
given scientiﬁc names (Wilson 2003). For many
of these, we know little more than their names as
they are known from only a single encounter in
which an explorer observed a creature never before
seen. Most of life’s diversity, however, cannot be
seen by the naked eye, and of these microscopic
creatures, we know far less.
Even with this limited view of the life we share
the planet with, we know that each year the
variety of organisms on earth continues to decline
(CBD 2014). Recent scientiﬁc estimates indicate
that species are disappearing up to 1000 times
faster than occurred before humanity populated
the planet (CBD 2010). Such statistics are often
diﬃcult for many people to grasp, especially as
most loss of biodiversity goes unnoticed. While
each of us may in our own lifetimes recognize that
one, or even a few, species that were once common
in a place we know have disappeared, far more
often species vanish without notice.

168 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

In the coming decades, a great mass of life on
earth hangs in the balance for survival as pressure
on the biosphere mounts, primarily from habitat
loss and, increasingly, climate change (see also the
chapter on climate change in this volume).

5. Ways forward: conservation as
a public health imperative
Too often, biodiversity harnessed from one corner
of the earth has beneﬁted another corner, with
little payback to its origins. Existing frameworks,
such as the Nagoya Protocol (see http://www.
cbd.int/abs/about/) or Fairwild Standard (see
http://www.fairwild.org), seek to ensure that
biodiversity’s value accrues in its place of origin.
These mechanisms, if successfully implemented,
could drive large investments in conservation
where biodiversity is richest and most imperilled.
Happily, successes have already been had in India
and Viet Nam for plant bioprospecting and in
Kenya, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria and Poland for
certiﬁcation of exported goods (see, for example,
Krishnakumar 2012; Meijaard et al. 2011).

As this volume attests, we know astonishingly
little about the life forms that inhabit the earth.
Even so, we know that many have already
provided invaluable cures for human diseases
and tremendous insights into the workings of the
human body. Given our ignorance of biodiversity,
we would be foolish to try to conserve only what
we deem important to ourselves. The dividends
of biodiversity realized in our economies must
be widely shared to promote the conservation of
biodiversity where it is needed the most (Pimentel
et al. 1997; Sukhdev 2014).
As compelling as arguments of the past have been
to conserve biodiversity, rates of extinction are
accelerating largely due to habitat destruction and,
increasingly climate change (e.g. CBD 2014; Urban
2015; Pounds et al. 2006; Franco et al. 2006).
To stem the tide of biodiversity loss, innovative
methods must be used to convince policy-makers
and the citizens of the world that biodiversity
must be saved.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 169

WORLD BANK PHOTO COLLECTION / FLICKR

10. Biodiversity, health care
& pharmaceuticals
1. Introduction
Other chapters of this state-of-knowledge report
explore the role that biodiversity plays in shaping
public health outcomes – including relationships
with infectious diseases, noncommunicable
diseases, and trauma associated with natural and
human-induced disasters. The contribution of
these chapters to understanding how population
health and the delivery of primary health care are
inﬂuenced by biodiversity is a central objective of
this state-of-knowledge review. However, to gain a
complete understanding of the health–biodiversity
nexus, it is also important to recognize that
policies and practices associated with the delivery
of health care can have impacts on biodiversity and
the sustainability of ecosystem services, and that
these impacts can subsequently have a negative
eﬀect on human health. Impacts can occur from
a number of sources, including health careassociated manufacturing, health-care and health
research facilities (hospitals, clinics, etc.), and
health-care related transport and trade. Potential
environmental concerns include energy demand;
emissions to the atmosphere, soil and water;
water use; waste disposal, including potentially
hazardous wastes; and the extraction/harvesting
of wild species for drug exploration or use. Box 1
below provides an overview of some of the major
environmental considerations associated with the
delivery of health care.

A wide range of chemical substances is used to
support health care, including pharmaceuticals,
disinfectants, cleaning products, X-ray contrast
media, various personal care and hygiene
products, and excipients. It is inevitable that
these will sometimes be released into the natural
environment through their manufacture, use
or disposal, and that they could subsequently
aﬀect biodiversity. Of particular interest, due
to their biological activity, are pharmaceuticals.
Since at least the early 1990s, there has been
increasing concern over the potential impacts of
pharmaceuticals used in health care on the natural
environment (Halling-Sørensen et al. 1998;
Daughton and Ternes 1999; Kümmerer 2009).
The particular focus of this chapter is the issue of
the environmental side-eﬀects of medication – the
potential impacts that drug entities and related
chemical compounds may have when they enter
the environment. The presence of pharmaceuticals
in the environment is an issue that has received a
great deal of scientiﬁc attention since the 1990s,
and numerous studies have now been performed
aimed at assessing and understanding their
environmental occurrence (i.e. how and to what
extent these compounds enter the environment),
fate (what happens to these compounds after
release), and eﬀects (particularly ecological and
(eco)toxicological impacts). There is increasing
evidence that pharmaceuticals in the environment

170 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 1. Overview of some of the major environmental considerations associated with
the delivery of health care
Examples of potential impacts of health-care activities on ecosystems
Issue

Example

Potential impacts

Energy use

Energy demand for health-care facilities
can be signi cant, with 24-hour
requirements for medical equipment,
lighting, heating and air-conditioning.

Energy demand is associated with
the consumption of fossil fuels,
emission of greenhouse gases and
other pollutants.

Water use

Hospitals and other health-care facilities
can use large quantities of water,
particularly for patient hygiene, surface
cleaning, food preparation and general
sanitation.

This adds signi cantly to
community demand for water
resources, potentially impacting
on aquatic ecosystems or waterdependent habitats.

Water quality

Health-care facilities use signi cant
amounts of a wide variety of pharmaceuticals and personal care products
(PPCPs), as well as sanitizers, and other
chemicals, such as X-ray contrast media.
Many of these are not fully degraded by
modern wastewater treatment systems
and end up in natural waters.

Release of PPCPs into the soil or
aquatic environments, including
some that act as endocrinedisrupting compounds, is
implicated in a range of impacts
upon ecosystems and upon animal
health and behaviour.

Waste production

As well as large quantities of general
paper and plastic waste, health-care
facilities can produce large quantities
of food waste and hazardous waste
materials, including biohazardous and
radioactive substances.

Waste disposal poses challenges
for environmental and public
health authorities. Inappropriate
waste management and disposal
infrastructure can impact the
quality of water, soil and air, and
a ect human, plant and animal
health.

Air quality

Many hospitals have incinerators to deal
with hazardous and/or biological waste,
which may release contaminants into
the local atmosphere.

This has potential for local impacts
on human or ecological health
(e.g. from NOx, SOx, particulates,
heavy metals), as well as the wider
release of greenhouse gases.

Emissions associated with healthcare-associated transport can also be
signi cant.
Medicinal species
harvesting, medical
research and drug
discovery

Much modern and traditional health care
depends on medicines derived from
nature, from modern drugs to herbal
remedies and complementary therapies.
Modern medicine also utilizes wild and
captive species for animal studies.

Unsustainable exploitation of
biodiversity for medicinal use or
research can endanger species and
ecosystems, and threaten the wellbeing of the human communities
they support.

Source: Adapted from COHAB 2014

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 171

can have an adverse eﬀect on biodiversity and
ecosystem services, unintentional though these
may be. Where these eﬀects on ecosystems could
lead to downstream eﬀects on public health,
interventions initially intended to promote
public health (i.e. the manufacture, supply and
use of pharmaceutical products) may actually have
unforeseen indirect negative impacts on health
and well-being.
The issue of pharmaceuticals in the environment
has come under the scrutiny of regulatory bodies,
including drug approval agencies such as the
United States (US) Food and Drug Administration
and the European Medicines Agency of the
European Union (EU), and others (Breton and
Boxall 2003; Kampa et al. 2010; Küster and
Adler 2014). It is also of particular interest to the
pharmaceutical industry, with many major drug
ﬁrms engaging with environmental chemists and
regulators in order to understand and address

these issues (Taylor 2010). As such, the issue of
pharmaceuticals in the environment illustrates an
important opportunity for collaboration between
health and environmental scientists, regulators
and the private sector to tackle a critical, crosscutting issue.
In the sections that follow, evidence for the
inputs and occurrence of pharmaceuticals in
the environment, and the potential impacts of
these on biodiversity is explored. Approaches
for reducing these inputs and impacts are also
discussed.

2. Inputs and occurrence of active
pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs)
Although pharmaceutical products have probably
been entering the environment for as long
as they have been manufactured and used,
this topic has begun to receive considerable

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Major pathways of release for active pharmaceutical ingredients into the environment

Source: Reproduced from Boxall (2004) with permission from EMBO Reports

172 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

attention only in recent years, as advances in
environmental monitoring technologies and
a greater awareness of environmental risk has
promoted their detection and assessment.
It is inevitable that during the life-cycle of a
pharmaceutical product, active pharmaceutical
ingredients (APIs) are released into the natural
environment (Halling-Sørensen et al. 1998;
Daughton and Ternes 1999; Boxall 2004). APIs
can be released to rivers and streams during the
manufacturing process – either directly through
fugitive (accidental or unmanaged) emissions,
or to wastewater treatment plants. Emissions
from manufacturing can be particularly high in
developing regions with a high manufacturing
base and with limited regulation (Larsson et al.
2007; Fick et al. 2009; Cardoso et al. 2014).

have determined that public health risks from
the consumption of individual APIs via drinking
water are likely to be very low (Bruce et al. 2010;
WHO 2011). However, the eﬀects of this exposure
route are diﬃcult to evaluate, and there have been
few studies of the potential risks from long-term
exposure to mixtures of APIs in drinking water
(Smith 2014). Risks to certain vulnerable groups
require further assessment (Collier 2007).

APIs also enter sewerage systems through human
use (Santos et al. 2010); API molecules may be
incompletely metabolized or broken down in the
body, and whole compounds or their metabolites,
daughter compounds (which are also sometimes
referred to as transformation products) may be
released with domestic wastewater. Following
use, in areas with sewerage connectivity, humanuse APIs and their metabolites will be excreted
to the sewerage system and transported to
wastewater treatment plants. The complexity of
some pharmaceutical molecules can limit their
degradation in wastewater treatment plants,
with the result that APIs and their transformation
products can be discharged to the environment
in the ﬁnal eﬄuent (treated water) when it is
released to surface waters such as rivers and
streams. In areas with low sewage connectivity,
APIs will be released directly to the environment.
Human-use APIs may also be released into the soil
environment when contaminated sewage sludge
or sewage eﬄuent is applied to land. These may
then be transported to groundwater and surface
waters through leaching, land drainage and storm
run-oﬀ. By these routes, APIs can also enter water
resources used for drinking water supply. Drinking
water treatment systems may not effectively
remove these compounds, and APIs have been
found in treated drinking water, albeit at very
low (ng/L) concentrations. From a toxicological
perspective, several detailed risk assessments

In contrast, veterinary APIs (i.e. pharmaceuticals
used for treating animals) can enter the
environment more directly, for example, by
being excreted directly into the soil by pasture
animals (Boxall et al. 2004), or directly applied to
surface waters and marine habitats in aquaculture
operations, with a risk of a build-up in sediments
(e.g. Coyne et al. 1994; Daughton and Ternes
1999; Rico and Van den Brink 2014). In terrestrial
ecosystems, the use of pharmaceuticals in
livestock is likely to be the most signiﬁcant source
of veterinary APIs entering the environment
(including via spreading of manure or slurry as
fertilizer). However, the use for treatment of
domestic pets, wildlife and feral animals may also
be important. Of particular interest in this regard
may be long-term, widespread programmes for
eradication of wild animal diseases through baiting
programmes, which run the risk of dosing nontarget animals directly (see, for example, Hegglin
et al. 2004; Campbell et al. 2006). A range of
veterinary APIs have consequently been detected
in agricultural soils, in marine sediments, and in
surface waters receiving run-oﬀ from farmland
(Boxall et al. 2004). In addition to the manufacture
and normal use of APIs, environmental inputs
can also arise from their disposal, either through
domestic refuse or disposal to the sewer system.
Landﬁll sites have been shown to be a potentially
important source of API contamination in surface

It is therefore not surprising that a range of
human APIs, including hormones, antibiotics,
non-steroidal anti-inﬂammatory drugs (NSAIDs),
antidepressants and antifungal agents have been
detected in rivers and streams across the world
(Hirsch et al. 1999; Kolpin et al. 2002; Monteiro
and Boxall 2010).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 173

and groundwater (Bound and Voulvoulis 2005;
Musson and Townsend 2009).
While the reported concentrations of APIs are
generally low (i.e. <μg L 1 in surface waters), these
substances have been observed across a variety
of hydrological, climatic and land-use settings.
It is also known that some substances (e.g. the
tetracycline and fluoroquinolone antibiotics,
selected antiepileptics and some antidepressants)
persist in the environment for months to years (e.g.
Boxall et al. 2006; Kay et al. 2004), meaning that
organisms can be exposed to these compounds
throughout their lifetime.

3. Impacts of pharmaceuticals
on biodiversity and ecosystem
services

It is also possible that metabolites and other
transformations products of APIs can have similar
or entirely diﬀerent biological activity in exposed
biota (Daughton and Ternes 1999). While the
individual or incidental exposure concentrations
of selected APIs may be very small, in some
instances, the exposure may occur over a long
period, particularly where APIs are persistent, or
where they are routinely emitted. Furthermore,
in ecosystems receiving a combination of APIs,
e.g. in sewage treatment plants receiving water or
sediment around ﬁsh farms, populations of wild
species are exposed to multiple diﬀerent APIs and
transformation products, leading to the risks of
additive eﬀects (caused by exposure to diﬀerent

VICTOR NEAGU / WORLD BANK PHOTO COLLECTION / FLICKR

APIs are developed and used because of their
biological activity. While in many cases the modes
of action of APIs are well established, for many
drugs the mechanism of action is not speciﬁcally
known or fully understood. This is true of human
and veterinary APIs. Most pharmaceuticals

are designed to interact with a target (such as a
speciﬁc receptor, enzyme or biological process)
in humans and animals to deliver the desired
therapeutic eﬀect. If these targets are present in
organisms in the natural environment, exposure
to some pharmaceuticals might be able to elicit
eﬀects in those organisms. Pharmaceuticals can
also cause side-eﬀects in humans and it is possible
that these and other side-eﬀects can also occur in
organisms in the environment.

174 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

APIs with similar modes of action) or synergistic
eﬀects (interaction between diﬀerent APIs). The
kinds of potential impacts range from acutely
toxic events, including death for some species
(notably invertebrates), and sublethal impacts,
including behavioural, endocrine, immunological,
reproductive and mutagenic eﬀects. This often
occurs in a context where wildlife is exposed
to other forms of pollution or disturbance, so
that APIs should be seen as adding to a larger
environmental burden.
Evidence for the ecotoxicological impacts of even
very low concentrations of APIs in the environment
has been noted in some studies. For human APIs,
a major area of concern is the impact of synthetic
hormones and hormonally active pharmaceutical
compounds. These add to an already signiﬁcant
environmental burden of endocrine-disrupting
compounds (EDCs), which comprise a wider range
of chemicals, including various detergents, ﬂame
retardants, pesticides, plant hormones and others,
as well as naturally occurring hormones that enter
sewage treatment works. The ecological impacts
of EDCs as a wider group of substances include
the occurrence of intersex characteristics in male
ﬁsh; this can be persistent and irreversible, with
subsequent impacts on fertility and population
stability (Orlando and Guillette 2007). These
eﬀects have been particularly noted in aquatic
ecosystems, where eggs can develop in the testes
of male ﬁsh exposed to EDCs. There is a large body
of evidence that suggests that one particular API,
ethinylestradiol (EE2) plays a signiﬁcant role even
at very low environmental concentrations. EE2 is
the active ingredient in the human contraceptive
pill, which is used by approximately 100 million
people worldwide (Jobling and Owen 2012). As
well as it use in birth control, EE2 is also used
for the treatment of various gynaecological
and endocrine disorders. Laboratory research
has shown that environmentally relevant
concentrations of EE2 alone can have dramatic
impacts on wildlife (Lange et al. 2001; Nash et al.
2004), while in one study in Canada, involving the
introduction of EE2 in a lake at a concentration
of just 5 parts per trillion (which is only slightly
higher than the concentrations expected in rivers

and streams) led to the complete collapse of an
entire population of ﬁsh (Kidd et al. 2007).
Another class of human APIs of current concern
is the antidepressants, which include compounds
such as ﬂuoxetine, escitalopram and paroxetine.
Recent research has suggested that environmentally
relevant concentrations of ﬂuoxetine, linked to
concentrations released in coastal and estuarine
habitats in the United Kingdom (UK), cause a
change in behaviour of the marine amphipod
Echinogammarus marinus by altering levels of
serotonin. Exposed amphipods showed an
increased tendency to swim close to the water
surface, which increases the likelihood of predation
by ﬁsh or birds (Guler and Ford 2010). Bean et al.
(2014) also demonstrated that environmentally
relevant levels of ﬂuoxetine could have signiﬁcant
behavioural and physiological eﬀects on starlings
(Sturnus vulgaris), which could be exposed to the
drug when feeding at sewage treatment plants
or fields treated with sewage sludge. Recent
research has also indicated that environmentally
relevant levels of antidepressants can aﬀect the
reproduction, feeding and predator-avoidance
behaviours of fathead minnows (Weinberger and
Klaper 2014). Brodin et al. (2014) demonstrated
that low μg/L levels of the anxiolytic oxazepam in
freshwater could lead to bioaccumulation in the
predatory European perch (Perca ﬂuviatilis), with
signiﬁcant impacts on feeding behaviour.
Impacts on wildlife have also been noted for
veterinary APIs. For example, Floate et al. (2005)
provide a comprehensive review of studies on
parasiticides applied to pasture animals. These
show that some classes of APIs are excreted to
pasture environments in concentrations that can
be lethal to coprophagous (dung-eating) insects
and to other species inhabiting the pasture soil
environment, over periods ranging from a few days
to several months (see also Lumaret et al. 2012).
This poses a potential risk to other species through
the food chain, including bats and birds. While
evidence for the direct toxicity of environmental
concentrations to vertebrate predators of pasture
insects has not been determined, there is concern
that reductions in farmland invertebrates may lead
to locally signiﬁcant reductions in prey availability,

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 175

including important prey items for certain species
(e.g. Vickery et al. 2001; Wickramsinghe et al.
2002; Boxall et al. 2007).
Perhaps the most well-known incidence of
veterinary drug impacts on wildlife have been

associated with the declines of several species
of vultures in South Asia (see case study below),
resulting from the use of the pharmaceutical
diclofenac in veterinary preparations, leading to
near-extinction of once-abundant wildlife, with

Case study: diclofenac and decline in the population of vultures
The Indian subcontinent was once home to several million vultures. These birds played a vital role
in the ecosystem, cleaning up carcasses of dead animals, and thereby helping to reduce the risk of
disease and contamination of soil and water resources. Their numbers were supported by the huge
numbers of livestock; India alone has the largest cattle population in the world. Dead livestock
are usually left out in the open for removal by vultures – the quickest, cheapest and most e cient
natural disposal method. But a drastic decline in vulture numbers began in the 1990s. The three
most abundant species – the oriental white-backed vulture (Gyps bengalensis), the Indian vulture
(G. indicus) and the slender-billed vulture (G. tenuirostris) declined by more than 95% in Pakistan,
India and Nepal between 1990 and 2001. It became evident that the decline in vulture numbers was
having an impact on ecosystem functioning, as evidenced by the number of animal carcasses that
were left to decay in elds across the Indian subcontinent. This has helped to boost numbers of feral
dogs, rats and other scavengers, resulting in a greatly increased threat of rabies and other diseases in
the human population.
Postmortems on vulture carcasses determined that massive numbers of vultures were dying
from visceral gout – the accumulation of uric acid deposits associated with kidney failure, but
microbiological and toxicological studies failed to pinpoint the cause as the decline progressed.
Eventually, an investigation of the primary food source of Gyps vultures – livestock carcasses – led
to the identi cation of a pharmaceutical compound, diclofenac sodium, as the cause. Diclofenac has
been widely administered by veterinarians and famers in analgesic, antirheumatic and antimicrobial
preparations, and its availability increased greatly in the early 1990s due to numerous market
factors. There have been reports of widespread abuse of the prescription laws that should restrict
drug sales, with poor dose controls for humans and livestock. This drug has been shown to be highly
toxic to vultures at the levels to which they are exposed from livestock carcasses. Diclofenac has
been banned in India, Pakistan and Nepal since 2008; however, there is concern that the ban is being
circumvented or ignored in some areas, and more widespread controls are required, as well as greater
cooperation with the farming community, if vulture populations are to recover in the region.
Studies have shown that African Gyps vultures are equally vulnerable to diclofenac poisoning,
suggesting that the risk may extend to all Gyps species, and there are concerns that many other
scavenging bird species are also susceptible. With the recent controversy over the approval of
diclofenac for veterinary use in parts of Europe, including Spain, which is internationally important
for avian scavengers, it is clear that there is a need for environmental risk assessments of veterinary
medicines to take a multidisciplinary perspective, based on the full scope of scienti c evidence, and
for regulatory authorities to take necessary precautions to prevent environmental contamination with
veterinary APIs.
Sources: Oaks et al. 2004; Markandya et al. 2008; Cuthbert et al. 2011; Naidoo et al. 2009; Margalida et al. 2014

176 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

several potential knock-in impacts on human wellbeing, including increased public health risks.
Although numerous detailed risk assessments
suggest that environmental concentrations of
most APIs in isolation are unlikely to have any
signiﬁcant impact on biodiversity, these examples
illustrate that there is reason for concern; there
is a need for more integrated environmental
risk assessments that account for ecological
interactions, and more effort is needed to
understand the risks associated with mixtures of
APIs in the environment (Backhaus 2014).
Another issue of concern related to both human
and veterinary APIs in the environment, with
more widespread implications for human health,
is the link to the growing threat of antimicrobial
resistance. The number and diversity of drugresistant pathogens is increasing, and a slowdown
in the production of new antimicrobial drugs since
the 1980s means that existing treatments are
increasingly ineﬀective against several important
human diseases (WHO 2014). Research has shown
that drug-resistant infections accounted for a large
number of emerging infectious diseases in the
past 30 years, and that multidrug resistance (when
an infection shows resistance to a range of drugs
normally used to treat it) is a serious and growing
concern (Jones 2008; Levy and Marshall 2004).
The causes of antimicrobial resistance are complex,
and although genes for antibiotic resistance occur
widely in nature without human inﬂuence, the
inappropriate use and overuse of antimicrobials,
including the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics
as growth promoters in agriculture, is a major
cause of drug resistance (WHO 2012). The risk
of resistance is also increased by the routine
disposal of drugs and drug residues. The release
of antimicrobial drugs into the environment
from human use and manufacturing, veterinary
applications, disposal at landﬁll sites, or use in
aquaculture increases the exposure of microbes to
those drugs, and thereby increases the potential
for the development of drug resistance. Research
has shown that pollution and patterns of human
water use are important risk factors (Pruden et
al. 2012, 2013; Wellington et al. 2013), and that
drug-resistant microbes are found in nature and

can be carried by wildlife, particularly by animals
associated with agriculture or human settlements
(Radimersky et al. 2010; Taylor et al. 2011; Carroll
et al. 2015), and persist in agricultural soils
(Kyselková et al. 2015).

)XWXUHFKDOOHQJHVHƨHFWVRI
social and environmental changes
The range of factors aﬀecting the occurrence
of APIs in the environment is by now well
understood. The science of risk assessment for
these pollutants is also increasingly advanced,
with product risk assessment based on product
usage (or estimated usage for novel drug entities),
estimates of wastage, (bio)degradation studies,
and assessment of ecological toxicity. However, a
number of important issues surrounding inputs to
the environment remain to be addressed.
For example, changing demographics are likely to
signiﬁcantly alter the type, range and quantities of
APIs being utilized at the local and regional levels.
For human APIs, ageing populations, increased
migration, economic transitions in developing
countries, and urbanization are all likely to
see shifts in the use proﬁles of pharmaceutical
products. Changes in agricultural practice –
to accommodate the increased demand for
speciﬁc foods, including responses to nutrition
transitions and conversion of natural habitats
for food production – are likely to see changes
in the quantities and kinds of animal health
products in use. Climate change is also expected
to have an impact by aﬀecting the ecology of
various pathogens in humans, domestic animals
and wildlife, and thereby potentially leading to
demands for the increased use of certain drugs,
and development of new drug entities to address
increased or emerging health threats. Climate
change may also aﬀect how APIs occur in the
environment and their relative risks to biodiversity.
For example, changes in surface water run-oﬀ,
changing water and soil temperatures, and changes
in natural vegetation and wildlife populations
may be expected to aﬀect the movement and
degradation of APIs in the environment, their
bioavailability, and the types of species exposed to
diﬀerent API compounds. Therefore, further work

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 177

SIMONE D. MCCOURTIE / WORLD BANK PHOTO COLLECTION / FLICKR

is required to understand the routes of exposure
of wild populations to APIs, and how these might
change under diﬀerent scenarios of future climate
and population changes (Boxall et al. 2008; Kim
et al. 2010; Redshaw et al. 2013).
To date, much of the research into the
environmental occurrence, fate and eﬀects of
APIs has been focused on high-income countries,
and more research eﬀort is needed to understand
the situation in least-developed countries, and to
devise solutions to related environmental risks
(Kookana et al. 2014). Risk assessments also
need to be strengthened to better account for the
sublethal eﬀects of APIs on wildlife populations
(e.g. in situations of low dose but long exposure),
particularly those that may have knock-on eﬀects
on predator–prey relationships and wider food
chain impacts. The potential risks of synergistic
or additive impacts – through combinations of
APIs in the environment, or co-occurrence with
other pollutants (e.g. the added impacts of EE2
in populations also exposed to other endocrinedisrupting compounds) – also need to be better
understood (Backhaus 2014).

One of the most pressing concerns involves
the manner in which antibiotic, antifungal
and antiparasitic APIs in the environment may
present selection pressures for drug resistance
in pathogenic organisms. The increasing threat
of antibiotic resistance, including the emergence
and rapid spread of multidrug resistance, means
that there is a demand for novel drug responses
as well as for a greater understanding of how the
use, abuse or overuse, and disposal of existing
antimicrobials might promote the emergence
and spread of drug resistance. Related to this is
the need for further research on how other forms
of pollution may enhance selection pressure
for the development of antibiotic resistance in
environmental microbes (Baker-Austin et al. 2006;
Finley et al. 2013), and on how drug-resistant
pathogens may be spread by wildlife.
Additional work is also required to prioritize
APIs for more detailed risk assessment. For
example, which types of drugs are likely to enter
the environment in ecologically significant
quantities? It is estimated that over 4000 diﬀerent
pharmaceutical compounds are currently in

178 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

widespread use (Boxall et al. 2012) and the
majority of these have not been tested for the
environmental eﬀects. While new pharmaceutical
products are subjected to risk assessment,
it is unlikely that a signiﬁcant proportion of
the existing APIs can be subjected to full risk
assessment in a timely manner. It is important
therefore that priority API pollutants are identiﬁed
for study.

5. Ways forward: reducing the
impact of APIs in the environment
In most developed countries with strong
regulatory systems for integrated prevention and
control of pollution, it has long been considered
that outputs of waste and wastewater from
the manufacture of APIs are well regulated and
controlled, so that fugitive emissions of APIs to
soil, groundwater and surface water would be
minimal – not least because any signiﬁcant fugitive
loss of API from a manufacturing facility also
represents a potential loss of revenue. However,
research into the environmental burdens of APIs
from sewage treatment plants receiving eﬄuent
from pharmaceutical factories has suggested
that manufacturing facilities are a potentially
signiﬁcant source of API inputs to surface water
and sewage sludge (Philips et al. 2010; Cardoso
et al. 2014). In some developing countries,
environmental inputs from manufacturing sites
have been found to be very high, particularly in
areas with weak or no regulatory frameworks
or poor enforcement, and in areas with high
concentrations of API factories (Fick et al. 2009;
Larsson et al. 2007; Larsson 2010).
Therefore, it is important that greater eﬀorts are
made to understand, regulate and minimize the
potential for API release from the manufacturing
sector, particularly in developing countries.
This should include advancement and uptake of
more environmentally friendly manufacturing
methods and of technologies to remove APIs from
wastewater streams, and greater focus on so-called
green chemistry – creating APIs that are “benign
by design” and inherently carry a low ecological
risk (Daughton 2014).

There is also a need to more eﬀectively regulate
the use and disposal of APIs at the community
level. This includes tackling the overuse and
overprescription of APIs, and perhaps exploring
opportunities for reduced-dose prescribing,
and conducting information campaigns to
promote wise use through sustainable healthcare campaigns. Health agencies that purchase
medicines for public use should be made aware
of the environmental issues associated with APIs,
and discuss these with their suppliers. Waste drug
take-back schemes should also be promoted, with
better education for customers from prescribers
and at the point of sale. Similarly, for veterinary
APIs, the risks of overuse and misuse of these
products must be eﬀectively communicated to
farmers and larger food producers, food retailers
and relevant regulatory bodies; appropriate
restrictions and support mechanisms can be put in
place to limit the impact of veterinary APIs to the
intended target species. The use of veterinary APIs
to treat diseases in wild populations should also
be carefully controlled, and widespread baiting
of APIs should be avoided or carefully managed
to reduce non-target eﬀects. In addition, while
recognizing that the causes of antimicrobial
resistance are complex, it is vital that greater
eﬀort is made to understand the linkages between
veterinary and human use of APIs, environmental
exposure, and the development and transfer of
antimicrobial resistance genes in pathogens.
It is important also that scientists, practitioners
and policy-makers in both the health and
biodiversity sciences engage more closely with
food producers, pharmacologists, environmental
chemists and other relevant stakeholders to
better understand and address the potential risks
associated with APIs, and assist with identifying
cross-cutting indicators – including priority
species and ecosystems for future monitoring of
potential impacts – to better facilitate cooperation
and effective action. This should become an
integral part of wider eﬀorts to mainstream a
sustainable development agenda into policies and
practice in the health-care sector (Vatovec et al.
2013; Schroeder et al. 2013; Morgon 2015). This
will become increasingly important in the face of
future social and environmental change.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 179

EDWARD N. JOHNSON

11. Traditional medicine
1. Introduction
The contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem
services to our health care needs is signiﬁcant, both
for the development of modern pharmaceuticals
(Chivian and Bernstein 2008; Newmann and
Cragg 2007; see also chapter on contribution of
biodiversity to pharmaceuticals in this volume)
and for their uses in traditional medicine (WHO
2013). Long before the rise of pharmaceutical
development, societies have been drawing on
their traditional knowledge, skills and customary
practices, using various resources provided to
them by nature to prevent, diagnose and treat
health problems. Today, these practices continue
to inform health-care delivery at the level of local
communities in many places around the world
(WHO 2013). In socioecological contexts such
as these, several resources used for food, cultural
and spiritual purposes are also used as medicines
(Unnikrishnan and Suneetha 2012). Traditional
medicine practices provide more than health care
to these communities; they are considered a way
of life and are founded on endogenous strengths,
including knowledge, skills and capabilities.
Despite noteworthy advances in public health,
modern health-care systems worldwide still do
not adequately meet the health-care needs of

large sections of the population across the globe,
and the health and development goals of many
communities remain unrealized (Kim et al. 2013;
Anonymous 2008). Consequently, health-seeking
behaviour in both urban and rural contexts around
the world is increasingly becoming pluralistic or
a mix of diﬀerent medical systems. For example,
in Peru, the plant knowledge of patients both at
herbalist shops and allopathic clinics was largely
identical. This indicates that traditional medicinal
knowledge is a major part of a people’s culture that
is being maintained, while patients also embrace
the beneﬁts of western medicine (Bussmann 2013;
Vandebroek & Balick 2012; Vandebroek 2013).
Given the interlinked nature of conservation,
health and development, it is relevant to consider
community-focused approaches¹ that also address
traditional health knowledge and conservation
strategies as a way to complement mainstream
health systems, and fulﬁl the basic human right
to health and well-being.

1.2 Traditional medicine and biological
resources
Biological resources have been used extensively
for health care and healing practices throughout
history and across cultures. Such knowledge is
often speciﬁc to particular groups living in distinct

¹ A community here is deﬁned as a group of people sharing a common ecosystem/landscape and associated knowledge.

180 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

environments, and is usually passed on over
generations (Etkins 1988; 2001; Shankar 1992;
Balick and Cox 1996; Vandebroek 2013; see also
the chapter on mental health in this volume).
Traditional knowledge in health care can range
from home-level understanding of nutrition,
management of simple ailments (see also
the chapter on nutrition in this volume) or
reproductive health practices, to treating serious
chronic illnesses or addressing public health
requirements. In local communities, health
practitioners trained in traditional and non-formal
systems of medicine often play an instrumental
role in linking health-related knowledge to
affordable health-care delivery (e.g. Stephens
et al. 2006; Montenegro and Stephens 2006;
Reading and Wien 2009). There are also formally
recognized practitioners of traditional medical
systems, often referred to as complementary
and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners,
formally trained in diﬀerent systems of medicine
such as Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine,
Kampo, Siddha, Tibetan medicine, Unani and
several others (WHO 2002; WHO 2005, Bodeker
et al. 2005; Payyappallimana 2010). Such systems
have been institutionalized and integrated into
health systems in their respective regions or
countries. These have led to the evolution and
standardization of local pharmacopoeias that
capture the uniqueness of biological diversity
and cultural practices of speciﬁc socioecological
regions, and have speciﬁc and well-organized
epistemological bases.
Unfortunately, both biological products and healthrelated traditional knowledge are increasingly
threatened (Reyes-García 2010). Overharvesting,
land-use change, and climate change are among the
major drivers of the decline in wild plant resources,
including those used commercially for food and
medicinal purposes (Hawkins 2008; FRLHT 1999;
2009; Ford et al. 2010). Analysing the individual
and combined impact of these drivers on the
biological resources used for food and medicine
at diﬀerent spatial scales is also an important
area for further research. Research in the area of
medicinal plants and climate change is already
emerging (e.g. Zisca et al. 2005, 2008). Although

use of faunal resources is not as profuse as that of
plant resources, illegal poaching and unwise use of
these resources for traditional medicine and hobby
pursuits has also taken a toll on the population
and diversity of fauna (Milliken and Shaw 2012).
Combined, the drivers of change pose a dual threat
to wild species and to the livelihoods of collectors,
who often belong to the poorest social groups. In
this chapter, we highlight the various dimensions
related to the conservation of biological resources
and promotion of traditional health-care practices,
illustrating the relevance of signiﬁcant areas with
case study examples.

2. Trends in demand for biological
resources
Plants used in traditional medicine are not only
important for local health practices, but also
for international trade, based on their broader
commercial use and value (Fabricant and
Farnsworth 2001). Globally, an estimated 60 000
species are used for their medicinal, nutritional
and aromatic properties and, every year, more
than 500 000 tonnes (UN Comtrade 2013) of
material from such species are traded. A complete
list of all plants used in traditional medicine does
not exist, but at least 30 000 species of plants
with documented use are included in the Global
Checklist; an extension of earlier eﬀorts of the
World Health Organization (WHO) and Natural
Products Alert Database (NAPRALERT) WHO
Collaborating Centre at the University of Illinois in
Chicago. It is estimated that the value of the global
trade in plants used for medicinal purposes may
exceed US$ 2.5 billion, and is increasingly driven
by industry demand (UN Comtrade 2013).
Fauna and their products are also extensively used
in traditional medicine; assessments of the use
of fauna and their products are mostly region-,
country- or taxa-speciﬁc (Alves and Alves 2011;
Nunkoo et al. 2012). A variety of animal body
parts and secretions are included in traditional
medicine pharmacopoeia (Alves and Rosa 2005).
Overall, in fact, there is often not a clear line
between the consumption for food or medicine,
with some species also being consumed for their
“tonic” properties.²

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 181

Increasingly, there is a reverse “re-engineering” or
“reverse pharmacology” process being undertaken
by researchers, where novel medicines or medical
therapies are being developed using traditional
processes. Furthermore, institutionalized
traditional medicine manufacturers are investing
in developing new products that are value additions
over existing forms of medicinal formulations
(Unnikrishnan and Suneetha 2012).
The demand for herbal medicines is rising
drastically, fuelled by factors such as cost–
efficacy and higher perceptions of safety. In

countries like India, it has been estimated that
approximately 80% of medicinal plants are
collected from the wild, leading to an increasing
pressure on natural resources (FRLHT 1999;
2009). Due to overharvesting and habitat loss,
approximately 15 000 species (or 21%) of the
global medicinal plant species are now endangered
(Schippmann et al. 2006). With rising demand and
reducing populations, problems of substitution,
adulteration and mistaken identities between
species are also on the rise, as illustrated by the
example in Box 1.

Box 1. Traditional medicine in a changing world: the example of Peru
The demand for traditional medicine is increasing in Peru, as indicated by the increase in number of
herb vendors in recent years, in particular, in the markets of Trujillo. A wide variety of medicinal plants
from northern Peru can also be found in the global market. While this trend might help to maintain
traditional practices and give recognition to traditional knowledge, it poses a serious threat, as signs
of overharvesting of important species are becoming increasingly apparent.
More than two thirds of all species sold in Peruvian markets are claimed to originate from the
highlands (sierra), above the timberline, which represent areas often heavily used for agriculture
and livestock grazing. The overall value of medicinal plants in the markets of northern Peru alone
reaches US 1.2 million/year. Medicinal plants contribute signi cantly to the local economy. Such
an important market raises questions around the sustainability of this trade, especially because the
market analysis does not take into account any informal sales.
Most striking, perhaps, is the fact that seven indigenous and three exotic species, i.e. 2.5% of all
species traded, account for more than 40% of the total sales volume. Moreover, 31 native species
account for 50% of all sales, while only 16 introduced plants contribute to more than a quarter of
all material sold. About one third of this sales volume includes all exotic species traded. None of
these species are rare or endangered. However, the rising market demand might lead to increased
production of these exotics, which in turn could have negative e ects on the local ora (Bussmann et
al. 2007b).
A look at the indigenous species traded highlights important conservation threats. Croton lechleri
(dragon s blood), and Uncaria tomentosa (cat s claw) are immensely popular at a local level, and
each contributes to about 7% to the overall market value. Both species are also widely traded
internationally. The latex of Croton is harvested by cutting or debarking the whole tree. Uncaria is
mostly traded as bark, and again the whole plant is normally debarked. Croton is a pioneer species,
and apart from C. lechleri, a few other species of the genus have found their way into the market.
Sustainable production of this genus seems possible, but the process must be closely monitored,
and current practice does not appear sustainable because most Croton is wild harvested. The trade

² http://www.traﬃc.org/wild-meat/

182 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

in cat s claw is so immense that, in fact, years ago collectors of this primary forest liana began to
complain about a lack of resources and it was found that often other Uncaria species, or even Acacia
species have appeared in the market as “cat s claw”. This is clearly not sustainable.
Some of the other “most important traditional medicinal” species in northern Peru are either
common weeds (e.g. Desmodium molliculum), or have large populations (e.g. Equisetum giganteum).
Nevertheless, a number of species are very vulnerable: Gentianella alborosea, G. bicolor, G. graminea,
Geranium ayavacense and Laccopetalum giganteum are all high-altitude species with very limited
distribution. Their large-scale collection is clearly unsustainable. In the case of Laccopetalum,
collectors indicate that nding supplies is becoming increasingly di cult. The fate of a number
of species with similar habitat requirements raises comparable concerns. The only species under
cultivation at present are exotics, and a few common indigenous species.
There are profound challenges when it comes to the safety of the plants employed, in particular,
for applications that require long-term use. Some studies found that various species were often
sold under the same common names. Some of the di erent fresh species are readily identi able
(botanically), but neither the collectors nor the vendors make a direct distinction between species.
Often, material is sold in nely powdered form, which makes the morphological identi cation of
the species in the market impossible, and greatly increases the risk for the buyer. The best way
to ensure correct identi cation would be DNA bar-coding. The necessary technical infrastructure
is, however, not available locally. The use of DNA bar-coding as a quality control tool to verify
species composition of samples on a large scale would require careful sampling of every batch
of plant material sold in the market. The volatility of the markets makes this a very di cult task
from a logistical standpoint. Furthermore, there is no consistency in the dosage of plants used, and
vendors do not agree on the possible side-e ects. Even in the case of plant species used for clearly
circumscribed applications, patients run a considerable risk when purchasing their remedies in the
local markets. Much more control is needed, as well as stringent identi cation of the material sold in
public markets, and those that enter the global supply chain via Internet sales.

While in-situ and ex-situ approaches to
conservation are adopted to address the loss of
medicinal resources, the success of conservation
strategies often depends on the comprehensive
involvement of diﬀerent stakeholders. In this
context, the example from India in Box 2 illustrates
the potential of in-situ conservation through
public–private partnership (PPP) arrangements.

Notwithstanding the inclusion of multiple
stakeholders in the implementation of
conservation programmes, the sustainability of
such initiatives is also dependent on the value of
a resource that can be captured by the diﬀerent
actors. It is possible to address some of these
concerns through market-based mechanisms such
as certiﬁcation to foster sustainable use standards
for medicinal plants, as is being piloted through
the FairWild example (Box 3).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 183

Box 2. Conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants in India
It is estimated that in India, around 300 plants and a few faunal species are in various threat categories
and their cultivation is not yet a viable economic option due to the preference for wild sourcing,
given lower costs (FRLHT 2009). There is also a general lack of information on agrotechniques
(Hamilton 2004).
To address these pressing issues, the Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT)
in India initiated the establishment of the largest global in-situ conservation network by establishing
medicinal plant conservation areas (MPCAs) – as an integrated approach to in-situ and ex-situ
conservation programmes. The rationale is to conserve and study medicinal plants in their natural
habitats and preserve their gene pool, and to further develop strategies for the management of
rare, endangered and vulnerable species. The areas not only provide a good locale for studies on
threat assessment, population studies and mapping, but also for participatory forest management, as
well as for policy-makers, the community and civil society organizations. Between 1993 and 2014,
FRLHT, jointly with the State Forest Departments, established 110 MPCAs across 12 Indian states
in a globally unique model of PPP. The programme has been spearheaded in collaboration with the
Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, and through the support of organizations such as the
Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA), United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Due to its success, the Planning Commission of India
recommended the establishment of 200 MPCAs across the country (Tenth Five- ear Plan, 2002).
There is also a recent move to recognize these locations as biodiversity heritage sites. A related
initiative is the establishment of medicinal plant conservation parks (MPCPs) – a community-based
ex-situ conservation initiative aimed at sustainable use of medicinal plant resources and preserving
knowledge associated with their use. Coordinated by FRLHT along with other nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations, a chain of MPCPs has been set up in
various parts of India. Attempts have also been made in pilot locations to integrate such medicinal
plant-based practices in formal primary health-care centres, apart from promoting them through
community health programmes. Within a geographical region, communities have been mobilized to
create:
• ethnomedicinal forests and resource centres housing herbaria and crude drug collections;
• local pharmacopoeia databases based on community knowledge;
• community and home herbal gardens and seed banks;
• outreach nurseries for the promotion of cultivation and a sustainable wild collection of medicinal
plants;
• trade and enterprise development that aids in income generation.
Moving up the value chain, FRLHT also established a medicinal plant conservation network (MPCN)
jointly with a number of NGOs working with di erent rural communities. As part of this e ort,
traditional healers associations have been formed at di erent levels of administration from the
province downwards. The associations conduct regular meetings and exchange of information

³ See: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/ﬁveyr/10th/volume2/10th_vol2.pdf
⁴ See: http://mpcpdb.frlht.org.

184 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

among healers and act according to self-regulatory guidelines, which have been evolved through a
participatory process based on the contextual peculiarities of each province. Healers associations
along with NGOs and forest departments have been actively engaged in supporting medicinal plant
conservation programmes in various states.
The MPCN is also working on the following issues:
• establishing herbal gardens;
• developing appraisal systems of healers capacities and training programmes;
• conducting action research interventions in key health areas such as malaria;
• facilitating networking through organizing medical camps, and district- and state-level conventions
of healers associations, but also healer exchange visits within the country and among other Asian
and African countries.

Box 3. Sustainable harvest and standards – The FairWild Standard example
The FairWild Standard provides a set of best practice guidelines for the sustainable use and trade
of wild harvested medicinal plants. It provides a basis for assessing the harvest and trade of wild
plants against various ecological, social and economic requirements. It was developed through
a multistakeholder consultation process that has engaged a wide range of organizations and
individuals involved with the harvesting and trade of these resources.
Use of the FairWild Standard helps support e orts to ensure that plants are managed, harvested
and traded in a way that maintains populations in the wild and bene ts rural producers. Version
2.0 of the Standard was developed following the merger of two initiatives: International Standard
for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP), which focused on
ecological conservation and some social/ethical aspects, and the original FairWild Standard, which
focused on social and fair trade aspects. The resulting set of principles and criteria covers eleven key
areas of sustainability. It is designed to be an applicable framework in a variety of implementation
contexts, as well as to be used as the basis for a third-party certi cation scheme.
During the development of the FairWild Standard, a number of pilot projects were carried out in
locations around the world to test its applicability. These projects included the collection of ingredients
used in traditional medicine; for example, the pilots of ISSC-MAP in India under the project “Saving
Plants that Save Lives and Livelihoods”, supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and implemented by FRLHT and TRAFFIC India. One of the
rst studies was conducted in Karnataka, India. Through a participatory planning approach involving
various stakeholders such as scientists and community members, a task team was set up for mapping
resources and elaborating a sustainable harvesting strategy. As part of the methodology involved
documentation of medicinal plant-related knowledge and non-timber forest product (NTFP) collection
practices, resource assessments were conducted for selected species. Training was provided for
mapping and assessing di erent harvesting methods. It was found that a well-organized stakeholder
group can plan and implement an e ective participatory resource management strategy. Apart from

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 185

standardizing and eld-testing the methodology, training modules for wider user groups have been
developed. This will be a useful strategy for biodiversity or joint forest management committees
through a community-to-community training programme (Unnikrishnan and Suneetha 2012).
Innovation with the FairWild Standard continues in India, with a certi cation pilot now under way
in the Western Ghats. With nancial support from the United Kingdom (UK) s Department for
International Development (DfID)/Department for Environment, Food and Rural A airs (DEFRA)
Darwin Initiative and the Keidanren Nature Conservation Foundation, the project intends to increase
the capacity of targeted local communities to adapt to climate change and participate in biodiversity
conservation through the improved management of socioecological landscapes. It is implemented
by the Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology (DICE), the Indian NGO Applied Environmental
Research Foundation (AERF), UK manufacturer Pukka Herbs Ltd. and TRAFFIC. The project aims to
establish supply chains for sustainable harvesting and fair trade in fruit of two tree species used
in Ayurvedic medicine (Terminalia bellirica and T. chebula). A FairWild certi cation protocol is to be
developed for the collection of these species and for establishing a community-regulated mechanism
for access and bene t sharing.
The FairWild Standard has also been implemented in other countries of Asia, South America, Africa
and Europe (Kathe et al. 2010). In addition to being used by communities for the management of
medicinal plant resources, the principles of the FairWild Standard can be used by industry for the
development of a sourcing policy to support the development and/or strengthening of national
resource management policies and regulations. Of particular relevance to the topic of biodiversity
and traditional health is a project that is currently under way as part of the European Union (EU)–
China Environmental Governance Programme, which experiments with promoting the adoption of
sustainable sourcing according to the FairWild Standard in the traditional Chinese medicine sector, as
part of a corporate social responsibility framework. In the international arena, it has also been drawn
upon in the development of best practice methodologies for carrying out non-detriment ndings
(NDF) by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES), and as a practical tool for implementing and reporting against the sustainable use objective
of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) s Aichi Targets 4 and 6.

2.1 Socioecological systems
The survival and vitality of knowledge and
resources depend on the sociocultural contexts
in which they are embedded. Typically, such
knowledge and resources are found to be most
vibrant among communities (specifically,
indigenous and local communities) close to
culturally important landscapes. These could
relate to socioecological production landscapes
(e.g. satoyama in Japan) or conservation systems
(e.g. sacred groves, ceremonial sites) or therapeutic
landscapes (e.g. sacred healing sites). Such

landscapes and related traditional knowledge
practices make important contributions to health
and well-being, therefore necessitating a close
inquiry into the functional interlinkages within
such systems, and maintenance of their dynamism
(Unnikrishnan and Suneetha 2012; Posey et al.
2000; see also the chapter on mental health in
this volume). Highlighted below is the case of
the Mayan people and their relationship with
nature and resources. A sensitive understanding
of the cultural ties between societies and nature
is required to ensure sustainability of both
knowledge and practices.

186 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 4. Therapeutic and sacred landscapes
Mayan people maintain a healthy or whole relationship with mother earth and the cosmos through
an intricate system of practices and knowledge known as Maya Science (Monterroso & Azurdia Bravo
2008). This divine relationship is enacted by the measure of time using the stars and constellations
but also through the use of sacred sites and traditional medicine (Gomez & Caal 2003). The sacred
sites (natural and constructed) are places to connect with the ancestors and to contemplate one s
role in relation to the social and natural world, but they are also places for healing in the landscape
(Gomez et al. 2010). In Guatemala as well as in many other countries, these sacred places are often
viewed as a biocultural network that spans land and seascapes, and embody a spiritual dimension
of well-being and often underrecognized healing potential (Dobson & Mamyev 2010; Delgado et al.
2010; Verschuuren et al. 2014).
Reyes-García (2010) reviewed the literature on traditional medicine and concluded that the holistic
nature of traditional knowledge systems helps to not only understand a plant s e cacy in its cultural
context but also improves our understanding of how ethnopharmacological knowledge is distributed
in a society, and who bene ts from it. In Guatemala, spiritual leaders, midwives, paediatricians,
naturopaths, and other traditional healers help counteract the various health problems in
communities. To the traditional Mayan healer, the body is composed of the sacred elements; earth,
water, re and air, which correspond to the sun, moon and stars. Therefore, use of traditional medicine
is practised based on the date of birth in the sacred Mayan calendar (Monterroso & Bravo 2008).
Within the context of the Mayan calendar, traditional healers know that diseases stem from the
spiritual, physical and psychological imbalance of a person, either from wilful violation of proper
conduct or due to lack of awareness. Due to colonization and consequent impacts on local and
indigenous communities, many traditional practices are fragmented and often combined with
elements of western medicine. They are often under ideological pressure and suspicion for the
lack a homogeneous theory, while resource scarcity is also an increasing problem underlying the
production of many traditional medicines (Delgado & Gomez 2003). Viewing these problems as part
of the erosion of cultural knowledge and practices can help in determining suitable and culturally
appropriate solutions. For example, Pesek et al. (2009), who researched Maya

eqchi knowledge on

medicinal plants and their ecosystems, concluded that traditional ways of protecting plant diversity
were better suited to medicinal plant conservation than external conservation solutions based on
conservation biology.
Garcia et al. (1999) describe how Mayan medicine in Mexico was reinforced by systematizing the
knowledge and experience of 40 traditional healers, and comparing these with other medical
traditions, such as Chinese health systems. Striking similarities were encountered, both in concepts
as well as practices, such as acupuncture, massage and the use of certain herbs and spiritual
healing techniques. This was used to reinforce the local traditional health system, as well as to
disseminate the experiences among traditional healers elsewhere in Central America. The exchange
of healers knowledge and practices is generally valued as an invigorating experience that can also
provide a platform for the legal recognition of traditional health practitioners (Traditional Health
Practioners 2010).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 187

3. Traditional medicine and
traditional knowledge at a
crossroads
With increasing urbanization and integration
of mainstream worldviews, communities
often experience alienation from the natural
environment (Roe 2010). Cultural systems,
including traditional health-care practices, are
concomitantly being eroded. As a result, despite
the wealth of traditional knowledge that exists,
the practice of traditional medicine is declining
(Payyappalli 2010). This is further accentuated
by institutionalized education systems that often
fail to recognize the relevance of these practices,
thereby distancing younger generations from
exploring such areas (Battiste 2010). The dominant
education and research systems tend to emphasize
knowledge and technologies with universal
standards, rather than supporting the needs of
speciﬁc regions or populations, and available
resources and capabilities (Haverkort et al. 2003).
A large part of traditional medical knowledge is
experience based and passed on through the
oral tradition, and such knowledge is not easily
transmitted in classroom-based learning. The
institutionalized traditional medical knowledge
either gets harmonized with mainstream systems
or is not adequately integrated in public health
care (Bodeker and Burford 2007), which indicates
ineﬃcient use of knowledge and trained human
resources.
Access to essential modern health care continues
to be a major challenge in many parts of the
world. Infectious diseases (such as HIV, malaria,
tuberculosis, pneumonia, diarrhoeal diseases
and several other neglected conditions), coupled
with chronic noncommunicable diseases (such as
diabetes and ischaemic heart disease), persistently
aﬀect lives in these regions (see also the infectious
disease chapter in this volume). Indomitable
challenges such as high maternal and child
mortality, and emerging and re-emerging diseases
(infectious, chronic, and lifestyle-related), are
typical constraints to well-being. For these reasons,
the role of traditional health-care practitioners in

community health is understood as ﬁlling a gap
in access to modern health care. However, it has
to be recognized that in most societies they do
play a critical complementary role in parallel with
the mainstream health system, an aspect that
needs to be better appreciated. This calls for a
multipronged approach where various resources
need to converge, including those related to local
health traditions. Experiences over the past two
decades show that there is high relevance in
aligning biodiversity conservation goals with a
community health approach (Miththapala 2006).
The customary absence of comprehensive
approaches to assess the role, economic potential
and policy implications of traditional knowledge
have also been noted as key reasons due to which
traditional cultures are frequently disregarded in
development programmes, making sustainable
development objectives among vulnerable
populations more difficult to attain (Jenkins
2000; Haverkort 2003). These issues must all be
considered in the context of a global health sector,
which predominantly relies on universal models of
modern medicine, and continues to be inadequate
for large sections of the population around the
globe.
New policy forums, such as the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES), are exploring ways of including traditional
and mainstream perspectives and methods to
undertake an assessment of biodiversity and
ecosystem services, and consequent impacts
on human well-being. Guidance on the need to
understand diﬀerent kinds of values held by people
towards biodiversity and ecosystem services to
inform methods of valuation and assessment
are being developed, with a speciﬁc focus on
adequate attention to public health (www.ipbes.
net). This calls for stronger partnerships between
stakeholders.
A number of leading international NGOs are
conducting capacity development activities for
traditional health practitioners, such as training,
and facilitating networks. One of these NGOs
is the Promotion of Traditional Medicines

⁵ See: http://www.prometra.org/representations_nationales/uganda.html

188 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

(PROMETRA),⁵ which has been working to alleviate
poor health conditions and services utilizing
traditional medicine since 1971. Its unit in Uganda
conducts a wide range of capacity development
activities for healers, addressing issues such as
exposure to potential value addition and income
generation activities, culturally sensitive disease
prevention and management of environmental
conservation. A unique initiative includes training
programmes designed for healers and youth from
communities on the use of traditional medicinal
resources and practices under the banner of
Buyijja Forest Schools. PROMETRA also works
on integrating traditional medicine in national
health systems to improve free choice of medicine
for citizens, protect biodiversity and participatory
forest management, promote research on
medicinal plants, protect traditional knowledge
and reinforce institutional capacities of civil
society organizations for a healthy environment
and sustainable development. Another relevant
best practice example is “Friends of Lanka” based
in Sri Lanka. It has promoted documentation
of practices, and research and networking of
traditional health practitioners. For this reason,
around 75 healers have been identiﬁed among a
population of 8000, who treat various conditions
such as snake- and insect bites and certain food or
natural poisons, which are considered as leading
causes of morbidity and mortality in rural areas
of developing countries. Friends of Lanka also
formed an association of healers, which initiated
an assessment of natural resource availability, and
methods for conservation and sustainable use
through home and community gardens.
Networks such as the MPCN and associations
of healers established within its framework are a
successful approach to facilitating knowledge and
experience exchange among traditional healers
nationally, regionally and internationally, resulting
in better health and conservation outcomes.

4. Strengthening traditional
health practices and addressing
loss of resources
To date, there have been several concerted eﬀorts
in the international arena to promote both the
conservation of biological resources, as well as
traditional knowledge. What has been lacking,
however, is a comprehensive eﬀort to emphasize
the linkages between these elements using an
integrated approach that draws on traditional
knowledge to complement and supplement
modern health-care systems.
With the Earth Summit and adoption of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at Rio
de Janeiro in 1992, signiﬁcant steps were taken
towards political recognition of the relevance of
traditional knowledge. In compliance with Article
8 (j) of the Convention, the respect, preservation
and maintenance of traditional knowledge, and
innovations and practices of indigenous and
local communities are related to the recognition
of the practices by these communities of their
traditional knowledge. Other important aspects
of these obligations include promoting the wider
application of such knowledge, innovations and
practices with the approval and involvement of
knowledge holders; and encouraging the equitable
sharing of the beneﬁts arising from the use of
such knowledge, innovations and practices.
These obligations are also applicable to traditional
medicine as it relates to traditional knowledge.
Furthermore, Article 10 (c) of the CBD states that
Parties shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:
“Protect and encourage customary use of biological
resources in accordance with traditional cultural
practices that are compatible with conservation
or sustainable use requirements.”
Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development calls for the recognition of, and
respect for the knowledge and practices of local
and indigenous communities in environmental
management towards the achievement of
sustainable development.⁶ Agenda 21 further
speciﬁcally calls for an appropriate integration of

⁶ The full text of the Rio Declaration is available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126–1annex1.htm

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 189

traditional knowledge and experience in national
health systems, and for conducting research into
traditional knowledge related to preventive and
curative health practices (Chapter 6 of Social
and economic dimensions – protecting and
promoting human health) (United Nations 1993).
Over the past six decades, two areas where the
contemporary relevance of traditional knowledge
has been fairly well acknowledged include the
management of the environment and natural
resources, and the delivery of health care (WHO
2002, 2005, 2013). The need to re-integrate
traditional medical approaches into healthcare
armamentarium is gaining more political and
social acceptance (UN 2010).

9DOLGDWLRQVDIHW\DQGHƫFDF\RI
traditional medicine
When a traditional recipe is scientifically
validated in terms of safety and eﬀectiveness,
and is aﬀordable, available and sustainable, it
provides valuable information. It may lead to an
oﬃcially recommended phytomedicine as well as
improvement in the provision of health services
to households. In both cases, the aim remains to
improve the quality of care in the community.
Integration of modern and traditional treatments
is common today. Plural therapeutic itineraries
are followed by large numbers of those seeking
care.  However, this process is often disordered
and deﬁned by factors completely extraneous
to a rational choice of effective and safe
treatment.  Scientiﬁc and clinical studies may
provide essential information to adequately
respond to the situation. Research strategies can
be based on various methods such as intercultural
population studies, historical accounts or
biological tests. Beginning with a collection of
clinical data during ethnopharmacological ﬁeld
studies may be a good start.

Many users of traditional medicines and
practitioners claim that the eﬀect of a treatment
is obvious when there is an improvement in the
health status.⁷ However, most ailments tend to get
better over time even without any care. In clinical
studies (with human subjects), observations are
organized in a way that makes it possible to know
whether observed outcomes can be attributed to
a given treatment. This can be obtained through a
dose-escalating prospective study (comparing
outcomes with diﬀerent doses of a treatment), or
with the leading benchmark of medical research
and evidence-based medicine: a randomized
controlled trial.
Before doing so, it is relevant to determine
which is the best among the various treatments
used to treat the same ailment in a population.
The “bedside-to-bench” approach has been used
with some success to answer this question; it is
based on precise clinical information on real cases
and statistical analysis of correlations between
treatments and outcomes (Willcox et al. 2011).
The clinical eﬀects of medicinal plants should be
studied using sound methods that are, insofar as
possible, the same as or compatible with methods
used for testing conventional medicines. This
could produce results that are understandable
and more widely acceptable to the scientific
community, health professionals and policymakers. It can also provide information useful for
the quality of care in the community. However, it
is also important to acknowledge that traditional
formulations might sometimes require testing
within traditional epistemologies and methods,
to avoid the potential misrepresentation of
effectiveness due to incommensurability of
methods (Shankar et al. 2007). The examples
in Boxes 5, 6 and 7 illustrate examples of good
practices in Palau, Mali and India to validate and
revitalize traditional medicinal practices, mindful
of the safety, quality and eﬃcacy of the practices,
and an inclusive approach with practitioners of
traditional medicine.

⁷ This observation is based on ﬁeld work conducted by the authors of this chapter.

190 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 5: Participatory approaches to validation: experiences from Palau and Mali
A relevant example linking traditional medicines and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) is the
survey performed in Palau on traditional medicines (or health practices) and NCDs – chie y diabetes
and high blood pressure. A nationwide survey was carried out to determine which traditional
medicines are most commonly used to treat these conditions, and what was the perceived
e ectiveness. Data were collected as part of a training course on scienti c research. A distinctive
feature of the results obtained was that, among 30 plants used for diabetes, two were the most
common (Table 1).

Table 1: Ingredients of traditional treatments most commonly used for diabetes
(mentioned 4 times, among 45 respondents with diabetes) in Palau (unpublished, 2014)
No. of reported
uses

N (%) reported “lower
sugar level in blood”

13

6 (46%)

kelsechedui

4

1 (25%)

Scaevola taccada

korai (kirrai)

4

1 (25%)

Morinda citrifolia

ngel/noni

12

0 (0%)

Phyllanthus palauensis

ukelel a chedib

4

1 (25%)

Name of the plant

Palauan name

Phaleria nisidai

delal a kar

Vitex trifolia

The di erence between the reported outcomes with the two most commonly used plants was
statistically tested. When comparing reported outcomes of P. nisidai and M. citrifolia, P. nisidai was
statistically more often associated with the reported outcome “lower blood sugar” (P=0.01). None of
the patients using M. citrifolia reported the outcome “lower blood sugar”, even though this plant was
the second most frequently used.
Following the identi cation of P. nisidai through this brief survey, a literature search was performed
to identify a potential link between the results obtained and what is known about the antidiabetic
properties of the plant. It was found that the high mangiferin content of P. nisidai could explain the
observed e ects. Indeed, in vitro and animal studies on this substance showed improvement in the
glucose tolerance test, inhibition of alpha amylase, alpha glucosidase and dipeptidyl peptidase IV (as
with some of the most recent antidiabetic drugs), increased insulin secretion and a hypolipidaemic
e ect (Kitalong 2012).
In a study on traditional treatments for malaria in Mali, use of the retrospective treatment outcome
(RTO) method resulted in a database of treatments taken for malaria cases in 952 households. From
the 66 plants used, alone or in various combinations, one was clearly associated with the best
outcomes: a decoction of Argemone mexicana (Table 2) (Diallo et al. 2007).

⁸ For a review of herbal medicines used to treat diabetes, see also Rao et al. 2010.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 191

Table 2: Correlation between plants used and reported outcome in a study on
traditional treatments for malaria in Mali

Plant

Total number of
people used on

Healed

Failed

% Healed
(95% CI)

P (Fisher
exact)

Argemone mexicana

30

30

0

100%
(88–100)

Reference

Carica papaya

33

28

5

85%
(68–95)

0.05

Anogeissus leiocarpus

33

27

6

82%
(64–93)

0.03

The recipe that showed the best outcomes in patients, a single plant in its traditional mode of
preparation and utilization, was selected for a further dose-escalating observational study, followed
by a randomized, prospective, comparative clinical trial (randomized controlled trial with the selected
local remedy versus the standard, imported treatment). After these clinical studies, the search for
active compounds was undertaken. The whole research process was labelled “reverse pharmacology”
or, more speci cally, “bedside-to-bench” approach.

Box 6: Traditional antimalarials – RITAM experience
There are a number of successful models and programmes for preventive and curative health
interventions that use traditional medicine and practices to achieve the desired goals. In the eld
of malaria treatment, there is the Research Initiative on Traditional Antimalarial Methods (RITAM),
which was initiated in 2001 (Willcox et al. 2003; Willcox & Bodeker 2004 www.gifts-ritam.org). This
initiative is based on a group of international researchers exploring ways to increase the relevance
of including traditional medicine in the repertoire of choices available for the prevention and cure
of malaria. As such, RITAM is working on traditional antimalarials with more than 200 members from
over 30 countries. A systematic literature review by RITAM indicates that numerous plant species
are used to treat malaria or fever. In India, FRLHT has been assessing the e ectiveness of traditional
medicine for malaria prevention through a participatory community-based approach. This includes
conducting a literature survey on plant drugs used for malaria management, as well as documenting
traditional antimalarial remedies and dietary rules for malaria prevention. Finally, pharmacological
references of the toxicology and e cacy of these practices from Ayurvedic and modern medical
literature are compiled. As part of FRLHT s malaria prophylaxis approach, communities in selected
endemic areas follow a regimen of malaria prevention (mainly consisting of an herbal decoction)
during the monsoon season for a selected period. The safety of the practice is assured and the
remedy is prepared fresh on speci c days at a community centre. By using a cohort study approach,
groups based in several regions that do not follow this regimen are compared with those that do.
Data gathered in the documentation has shown positive results for malaria prevention, indicated by
statistically signi cant positive outcomes.

192 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

The case of the RITAM initiative (in Box 6)
highlights that utilizing traditional medical
knowledge through community -based
participatory approaches is feasible and urgently
needed to ﬁnd solutions to the continuing high
incidence of preventable and curable diseases such
as malaria in regions where it is endemic. This also
requires the consideration of ethical factors, e.g.
free, prior and informed consent (Unnikrishnan
and Prakash 2007). Home herbal gardens is a
successful model to promote access to health care
through sustainable natural resource management
of medicinal plants.⁹ According to observations,
it has successfully reduced poverty in rural areas
and revived local knowledge of medicinal plants
and traditional health practices. Today, 200 000
home gardens across 10 states in India are used to
meet the primary health-care needs of some of the
poorest households, while reducing their health
expenditure. A majority of participants are now
contributing fully to meet the costs of raising their
medicinal plants. Some studies show that there is
substantial health cost saving due to the use of
home remedies (e.g. Hariramamurthi et al. 2006;
Bode and Hariramamurthi 2015).

5. Challenges to the protection of
traditional medical knowledge
Many pharmaceutical drugs used today have
been derived from plants that were initially used

in traditional systems of medicine (Fabricant
and Farnsworth 2001). According to WHO,
approximately 25% of these are plant derived.¹⁰
Health-related traditional knowledge has been
commonly accessed for developing new medicines,
although knowledge, practices and resources have
often been misappropriated (Timmermans 2003).
The extent to which traditional medicine can guide
drug discovery has been subject to controversy,
contributing to ﬂuctuations in investment in
bioprospecting informed by ethnobotanical data
(Saslis-Lagoudakis 2012).

5.1 Databases for health-related
traditional knowledge
Searchable databases for health-related traditional
knowledge, which ensure the protection of
related resources and knowledge, are currently
being developed. A unique database project is
the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, which
was developed through collaboration between
the Council for Scientiﬁc and Industrial Research,
the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology,
and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Department of AYUSH). An interdisciplinary
team of experts from Ayurveda, Uniani, Siddha
and Yoga as well as from information technology
(IT), law and scientists manages the digital library.
It involves documentation of the traditional
knowledge available in the public domain in the
form of existing literature related to Ayurveda,

Box 7: Home herbal gardens as a self-reliant community health programme
A self-reliant approach to managing simple, common health conditions can reduce the health
expenditure of poor rural households and rural indebtedness in many developing countries (Van
Damme et al. 2003). Home herbal gardens, as conceived by the FRLHT, are a collection of 15–20
prioritized medicinal and nutritional plants, and have become a successful model for a self-reliant
community health programme. Apart from being a conservation milieu for medicinal plants, it also
addresses nutritional challenges. In most rural communities, knowledgeable women take care of
certain primary health needs of the family members and the gardens become a handy resource for
them. Some women, by taking on the role of suppliers of seedlings for the programme, also earn
supplementary incomes.

⁹ For other health beneﬁts of home gardens, see also the nutrition chapter in this volume.
¹⁰ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 193

Unani, Siddha and Yoga, in digitized format in
ﬁve international languages: English, German,
French, Japanese and Spanish. Furthermore,
for the purpose of systematic arrangement,
dissemination and retrieval, the Traditional
Knowledge Resource Classiﬁcation, an innovative
structured classification system, has been
developed for about 25 000 subgroups related to
medicinal plants, minerals, animal resources, their
therapeutic uses, clinical applications, methods of
preparation, modes of administration, etc.
By providing information on traditional
knowledge existing in the country, in languages
and formats comprehensible to patent examiners
at international patent offices, the database
contributes signiﬁcantly to preventing the grant of
wrong patents. In parallel, various organizations
are undertaking a similar exercise to document
oral knowledge or knowledge in the informal
domains through the development of community
knowledge registers. Chieﬂy led by NGOs, these
registers attempt to rally community members
to discuss and document their knowledge and
practices in diﬀerent categories of resource use
or practices based on two premises: (1) that by
documentation, they establish prior art over the
knowledge and resource use, and (2) it promotes
greater use and practice of the knowledge within
the community, eventually reinforcing such use as
strong social traditions.
Community biodiversity registers have been developed and promoted as sui generis documentation
systems to protect biodiversity-related traditional knowledge (Gadgil et al. 2000). These have
been incorporated in the national laws of various
countries. In India, for example, these registers
have been further executed through biodiversity management committees (the lowest level of
governance unit) that are engaged in systematic
documentation of local resources and knowledge.
More recently, communities have been articulating
their rights over their knowledge and resources by
developing their own biocultural community protocols. Deﬁned by communities, these highlight
the legal rights that are vested in communities

by virtue of international and national laws,
and provide a self-description of the community
proﬁle, their resources, rights and responsibilities. They also provide an indication of the terms
of engagement with external agents. These documents therefore can be viewed as legal tools to
foster protection of the rights of communities.
These databases are useful for exemplifying
the value of encouraging the development and
improvement of community knowledge registers
and biocultural protocols, and linking them with
national databases for protection. They also show
that it is necessary to build on and scale up good
practices of ethical and equitable agreements
with international collections and industries
related to the use of traditional knowledge and
natural resources for research or commercial
purposes. Moreover, despite all their inherent
challenges, web-based databases can also be an
important tool for the exchange of information
between ethnopharmacological studies and the
public, and for the dissemination of information
between researchers, planners and other users
(Ningthoujam et al. 2012).
More recent trends show a process of “reverse
engineering”, where traditional processes and
methods are deployed for the development of
mainstream novel products. This again raises
questions of the commensurability of attributions
to existing knowledge with the novelty deﬁnitions
of intellectual property laws.
As most of the traditional environmental and
medical knowledge among communities is oral
in nature, revival of the social processes of their
generation, preservation and transfer within
communities needs to be well studied, despite
all the inherent challenges associated with this.
Furthermore, traditional medical knowledge
can inspire industrial research and development
processes in bioresource-based sectors, which
require mechanisms to secure appropriate
attribution and sharing of rights and beneﬁts with
knowledge holders, as set out in the text of the
CBD and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to genetic

194 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

resources and equitable sharing of beneﬁts arising
from their commercial utilization.¹¹ The example
in Box 8 illustrates an initiative that attempts to

integrate these issues while raising the capacities
of multiple stakeholders in achieving better public
health outcomes in Africa.

Box 8: Capacity building on plant research for better public health in Africa
The Bamako Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health organized by WHO was held in November
2008 to strengthen research for health, development and equity. The Bamako call to action notably
prioritized the development of policies for research and innovation in health, especially related to
primary health care and the strengthening of research capacity by building a critical mass of young
researchers (WHO 2008). It was this call to action that led to the creation of the Multidisciplinary
University Traditional Health Initiative (MUTHI): Building Sustainable Research Capacity on Plants for
Better Public Health in Africa, initiated in anuary 2010 and set to be nalized in December 2014.
The MUTHI project was established with European Union funding (Framework 7 Programme) to build
more sustainable plant research capacity and research networks between key institutions in Africa
(Mali, South Africa and Uganda) and a group of partner research institutions in Europe (Norway, UK
and the Netherlands) to attain better health in Africa (MUTHI 2013). The project has provided a fouryear capacity-building programme, in which African researchers are trained in all the necessary
skills to produce and commercialize safe and standardized improved traditional medicines (ITM),
and are trained in intellectual property rights (IPR) regulations and principles of access and bene tsharing (ABS). The project is based on the needs of the African partner institutes to strengthen their
ethnopharmacological research capacities in the area of ITM.
For more e ectiveness, the MUTHI project has been divided into work packages that each focus on
a di erent aspect of the project: (1) training in medical anthropological and ethnopharmacological
research skills to conduct high-quality ethnobotanical and ethnopharmacological research on
medicinal plants; (2) quality control of phytomedicines and nutraceuticals; (3) investigative
bioactivity and safety of phytomedicines and nutraceuticals, with the objectives of assessing
the needs of African institutes and developing the capabilities of researchers for bioassays, data
management, quality assurance, bioactivity evaluation, safety aspects and developing guidelines; (4)
identify researchers needs for clinical and public health training, and build the capacity of traditional
medicine researchers on all aspects of the subject, including writing and data analysis; (5) examine
ethics and IPR, aiming to assess training and education requirements for stakeholders on IPR,
biodiversity legislation and regulation, ABS, and ethics of traditional medicine and research methods
(Bodeker et al. 2014, Bodeker et al. 2015). A sixth work package is charged with project management.
The benchmark referenced in the MUTHI project is the Code of Ethics of the International Society
of Ethnobiology (ISE), initiated in 1996 and completed in 2006. Contrary to other frameworks, the
ISE Code of Ethics addresses the rights of the individual knowledge holders. Participants of the
rst work package conducting an ethnobotanical and retrospective treatment outcome study have
been trained through workshops focused on research skills, ethics and IPR, and have received
online guidance in writing their research proposals, including a section on research ethics and free
prior informed consent (FPIC). The latter had to be established at individual and collective levels,
¹¹ The Nagoya Protocol on Access to genetic resources and equitable sharing of beneﬁts arising from their commercial utilization
(Nagoya Protocol), adopted by the Tenth Conference of Parties to the CBD, was concluded on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya,
Japan. It provides the framework to facilitate access and beneﬁt sharing. See http://www.cbd. int/nagoya/outcomes/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 195

as determined by community governance structures before the start of the research. The a ected
communities were provided with complete, comprehensive information regarding the purpose and
nature of the proposed programme, project, study or activities, the probable results and implications,
including all reasonably foreseeable bene ts and risks of harm (be they tangible or intangible)
to a ected communities. The work package team that is responsible for all aspects related to IPR
and ABS within the MUTHI project provided a needs assessment followed by workshops on ethics
and IPR, and mentored participants from all of the partner countries in developing memoranda of
understanding between researchers and traditional healers, including aspects related to FPIC and
ABS. The drafting phase of the memoranda of understanding was an ongoing process between the
researchers and traditional healers in order to reach a nal memorandum of understanding approved
by all stakeholders (Bodeker et al. 2015).

6. Ways forward
Despite the multiplicity of policies, goals and
targets to address health, environment and
development challenges, we are still far from
achieving the stated objectives of policy forums,
chieﬂy because of a lack of synergy and integration
in policy implementation. Moreover, mainstream
health sector practices often continue to neglect
broader determinants of health or intersectoral
linkages to health. There is increasing recognition
from the academic community and public alike
that no single system of knowledge can solve
the mounting problems of humanity (Rai et al.
2010; Bodeker and Burford 2007), and a more
comprehensive multidisciplinary and pluralistic
strategy is needed.
One possible way forward to address the
interconnected issues of conservation (of
knowledge and biological resources), and
equitable and aﬀordable health-care provision
is to undertake an integrated approach with the
full involvement of communities. However, there
is no universal way to achieve this goal and no
homogeneous methodology that can be applied
(Wage et al. 2010). Traditional knowledge on
health and biological resources is by its very nature
context speciﬁc. Culturally sensitive and locally
appropriate approaches are required (see also the
chapter on mental health in this volume).
Some multipartner initiatives, such as the
Biodiversity and Community Health (BaCH)
Initiative, attempt to pool the individual strengths

of different agencies to synergize multiple
eﬀorts to achieve biodiversity conservation, and
health and development, especially at the local
levels of implementation. Launched as a global
multistakeholder initiative in 2012 during the
eleventh Conference of the Parties to the CBD
in Hyderabad, India, it primarily aims to develop
and mainstream community health approaches by
supporting traditional knowledge and biodiversity
conservation, and promoting the sustainable use of
biological resources by building on lessons learned.
It also aims to exchange knowledge with partners
from both the government and nongovernment
sectors, as well as international organizations.
The Initiative underscores the role of the
ecosystem as a reliable and low-cost service
provider, and supports sustainable natural
resource management. It also revitalizes eﬀective
traditional medical knowledge and local remedies
by developing knowledge, skills and capabilities
of the populations living in close proximity to
biological resources. Under the coordination of
the United Nations University Institute for the
Advanced Studies of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), the
BaCH is simultaneously addressing the following
objectives: (i) the integration of conservation
priorities in health system planning; (ii) raising the
contemporary relevance of traditional medicinal
practices; (iii) identifying and piloting best
practices for local innovations through livelihood
programmes and for self-reliant health systems;
and (iv) operationalizing a comprehensive health
and well-being approach by working with relevant
stakeholders and actors.

196 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

6.1 Innovations and incentives
It is important to leverage and strengthen the
high patronage for traditional medical care to
improve public health outcomes and achieve the
reemerging broader objectives of “Health for All”
(WHO 1998) and “Good Health at Low Cost”
(Balabanova et al. 2013). This requires enabling
decentralized approaches that allow better
access to health care, are culturally sensitive and
contribute to more comprehensive knowledge on
the use of biological resources and health.
Implicit to decentralized conservation measures
is the need to strengthen local innovation. This
may be achieved through awards, assistance
for livelihood programmes based on medicinal
resources and local enterprises, appropriate
intellectual property protection, and relevant
cross-sectoral collaboration at all levels. It is
further relevant to develop the capacities of
traditional health practitioners to provide safe
and eﬀective health care, and build sustainable
partnerships with diﬀerent collaborators (Brewer
2014). Mechanisms for the protection of such

traditional knowledge resources, prevention of
their erosion and linking them with scientiﬁc
research are related areas that also need further
attention.
The value chains of traditional medicine and,
generally, medicinal resources are often linked
to various sectors, with much of the primary
supplies provided by local communities reliant
on the same ecosystems and life-supporting
services they provide. Harnessing their knowledge
on the identity and use of medicinal resources,
and their sustainability can be strengthened by
improving the economic returns from their eﬀorts
by promoting value-added activities at the local
level. Encouraging the development of enterprises
based on medicinal and nutritional resources and
services, and of new, appropriate and feasible
technologies that could enhance productivity and
quality of resources would further complement
conservation measures, as they serve as economic
and social incentives. Examples of innovative
strategies and initiatives linking conservation and
community health are described in Boxes 9 and 10.

Box 9. Community livelihoods – linking conservation with community health
There are several successful cases that highlight how the sustainable management of medicinal
plants can impact community livelihoods, leading to income generation and improved community
health (see, for example, Hamilton 2004; Hamilton & Hamilton 2006).
One such initiative is the Muliru Farmers Conservation Group, a community-based organization
located near Kakamega forest in western Kenya. The group generates income through the commercial
cultivation and secondary processing of an indigenous medicinal plant, Ocimum kilimandscharicum to
produce the Naturub® brand of medicinal products.
The enterprise reduces pressure on the biodiverse Kakamega forest by o ering an alternative to the
exploitation of forest resources, while the commercialization of the medicinal plant has heightened
local appreciation of the value of the forest s biodiversity. Over half of the project participants are
women and 40% of participants rely entirely on this initiative for their income. The enterprise invests
a portion of its revenues in forest conservation and biodiversity.
Since the processing facility opened, over 770 tons of community cultivated O. kilimandscharicum
leaves have been processed. Over 400 000 units of Naturub® products have been sold in both
urban and rural areas of Kenya. The products have received wide acceptance in the market. The total
revenue from the project thus far has been over US 70 000. Currently, over 360 rural households
cultivate the plant on smallholder farms.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 197

Box 10. Herbanisation: an open-access, medicinal street garden project for greening,
healing and connecting in Cape Town, South Africa
Cape Town, South Africa is home to a vast trade in medicinal plants, with 262 tonnes of wild
medicine being harvested from within the city annually (Petersen et al. 2014a; Reid 2014). The
illicit harvest of plant material from the city s protected areas, prompted by local demand and the
economic marginalization of many healers, has brought herbalists and conservation authorities into
con ict. The intersection of conservation priorities, livelihoods based on wild-harvested plants, and
health and well-being has resulted in a conservation conundrum (Petersen 2014b). It was in light of
this conundrum that the Sustainable Livelihoods Foundation, a nongovernmental organization based
in Cape Town, collaborated with Rasta bushdoctor (herbalist) partners to establish “Herbanisation”.
Herbanisation is an open-access, medicinal street garden project based in Cape Town. The project
aims to green degraded streetscapes in economically marginalized areas while contributing to the
livelihoods of local Rasta and Khoi herbalists, and reconnecting community members with medicinal
plants and indigenous knowledge. Herbanisation began as a pilot project of 250 medicinal plants
in 2012. Originating in Seawinds, an area of high unemployment and many social ills such as
gangsterism, drug abuse and violence, the garden was established on a pavement beside an existing
community nursery, with open access to local healers and the community. The project wanted to
connect, heal and green the community through plants. Since the inception of the pilot project in
2012, Herbanisation has expanded to include approximately 1700 plants in Seawinds, Cape Town,
and is set to reach 4500 by mid-2015.
Herbanisation has already resulted in groundbreaking engagement between Rasta herbalists,
conservation bodies and local botanical organizations. In addition, the project is strengthening
linkages between park activities and urban conservation e orts, making local nature a key driver
of urban renewal e orts. In terms of the impact on the local neighbourhood, many Seawinds
residents and local traditional healers harvest from the Herbanisation street gardens in order to treat
themselves and their families. Not only does this contribute to the health and well-being of the local
community, but it also empowers individuals to take their health into their own hands and feel proud
of their role as indigenous knowledge bearers.
Three guiding principles have been key to the success of the project to date. First, work with local
champions: our project was born out of a partnership with Neville van Schalkwyk, an accomplished
gardener and Rasta herbalist elder in Seawinds. Working with established, respected and dependable
individuals is key to project longevity and success. Second, use gardens as vehicles: while providing
herbalists and the community access to medicinal plants is a key aspect of the project, the gardens
also serve as places and processes through which conversation is enabled between herbalists,
conservation authorities and the government. This is vital in linking grass-roots community e orts
with regional policy design and implementation. Third, apply open-access principles: we have chosen
to establish gardens on disused public open spaces where plants are freely accessible to the local
people. This model encourages interaction between people and plants, while stimulating knowledge
exchange and fostering a sense of community participation and ownership.

198 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

These cases highlight that promoting enterprises
through traditional medicinal resources and
products – where stakeholders in close proximity
to biological resources and knowledgeable about
their use also gain a fair share from the value
chain – are successful models that can address
both improved livelihoods and sustainable natural
resource management.

6.2 Capacity and research needs and
development approaches
Sustainable medicinal resource management
for both captive breeding and wild collection is
important for the future of traditional medicine.
It should involve all stakeholders, including
conservationists, private health-care sector, medical
practitioners and consumers. It is important
to increase partnerships at the local, national,
regional and global levels by supporting/facilitating
enhanced networking among various stakeholders,
such as in value chain partnerships, and learning
partnerships among and between peer groups. Good
examples include the development of standards
and certiﬁcation schemes, such as the FairWild
Standard developed by TRAFFIC, International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) and other partners in a
multistakeholder, inclusive consultation process
as a best practice tool to verify that the wild
collection of plants is ecologically sustainable and
trade is equitable. A complementary initiative is
the BioTrade Veriﬁcation Framework for Native
Natural Ingredients developed by the Union for
Ethical BioTrade. These eﬀorts enable monitoring
of collection and trade practices, and tracing the
movement of resources, in addition to fostering
sustainable use practices that allow beneﬁts to

diﬀerent actors in the supply chain. Furthermore,
such partnerships could potentially enable the
facilitation of ﬁnancial support mechanisms to
promote research and development, capacity
development and awareness activities related to
traditional medical knowledge.
Traditional approaches to health care have been
tested empirically, albeit without adequate
documentation. Documenting such experiences
and thereby fostering a participatory learning
process to identify and supplement current
practices in a culturally sensitive way is a signiﬁcant
challenge. As seen from the examples from Palau,
Mali and India, there is also value to be gained
from reﬂexive methods of capacity development,
which foster learning between experts external
and internal to the traditional medical systems,
at various levels of operation, including the
sustainable use and protection of the resources.
Further research is also needed to assess the
individual and combined impact of drivers of
change at the local, national and global scales,
which lead to the loss of species used for
food, traditional medicines or as the basis for
pharmacological compounds. Unsustainable
harvest, land-use change, urbanization, illegal
trade and climate change are among the key drivers
that have already hindered access to and the
potential long-term viability of these resources. It
is important to examine the response of medicinal
plants and other pharmacological compounds to
climatic changes. Interdisciplinary research in
this area can provide valuable insights to public
health and conservation scientists, policy-makers
and local communities, who depend on them for
their health, livelihood and well-being.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 199

ELLENM1 / FLICKR

12. Contribution of biodiversity and
green spaces to mental and physical
ƩWQHVVDQGFXOWXUDOGLPHQVLRQVRIKHDOWK
1. Introduction
Examining the interlinkages between biodiversity,
mental health and health in all its dimensions as
deﬁned by the World Health Organization (WHO)
(“a state of complete physical, mental and social
well-being and not merely the absence of disease
or infirmity”) demands that we explore the
interrelationships among biological and cultural
diversity, and between physical and mental health,
to foreground integrative and interdisciplinary
approaches and research that draws from diﬀerent
disciplines, and that we are able to accommodate
diverse perspectives. Integrative approaches that
explicitly engage with biodiversity, physical and
mental health, along with cultural and ecosystem
dynamics, continue to emerge in fields such
as ecosystem approaches to health, Ecohealth
and One Health, with a growing focus on
interrelationships among the health of humans,
animals and other species in the context of social–
ecological systems (see, for example, Charron
2012; Waltner-Toews 2004; Webb et al. 2010;
Wilcox et al. 2012). At the same time, scientiﬁc
and clinical studies drawing from other ﬁelds
such as immunology can contribute invaluable
insights into these multifaceted dimensions. The

connections between biodiversity, mental health
and physical activity are particularly relevant in
the context of a shifting global burden of disease,
in which noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are
the most rapidly rising challenge to global public
health.
As discussed in the sections that follow, contact
with nature may not only be associated with
positive mental health beneﬁts, but can also
promote physical activity and contribute to overall
well-being. Biodiversity can have both direct and
indirect beneﬁts for physical and mental health
(Pretty et al. 2011), just as it can sometimes pose
direct and indirect health threats, particularly
when unsustainably managed or compounded by
global threats such as climate change.
Other indirect benefits, not traditionally
considered in the global public health agenda,
include the contribution of biodiversity to the
provision and sustenance of a range of cultural
ecosystem services such as spiritual values,
traditional food cultures, educational values
and social relations.¹ If our cultural perspective
assumes that “biodiversity” refers to “all life
forms” then as humans we are inseparable, and

¹ From the Agenda 21 for Culture: cultural diversity is deﬁned as “a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual,
emotional, moral and spiritual existence.” (Agenda 21 for Culture 2004). Based on this view, the starting proposition, that
there are linkages between biodiversity and human health, is more adequately framed by examining the diversity of life in
toto, rather than separate nature from culture.

200 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

we interact with other life forms in a myriad of
ways that is life itself; indeed, without life forms
there would be no life on the planet, including our
own. A diﬀerent cultural perspective might see the
interlinkages between biodiversity and health as
important to explore because of a perceived loss of
biodiversity, and the environmental degradation
that has arisen as part of modern industrial
societies, rapid population growth and the
urban/agricultural settings of the contemporary
anthropocene.²
Accordingly, this chapter examines the
interlinkages between biodiversity and mental
health, including with consideration for its
social and cultural dimensions and the way these
components of human health and well-being also
relate to cultural ecosystem services. In light of
the relationship between physical inactivity and
NCDs, this chapter also examines the potential
links between biodiversity and physical ﬁtness,
including in urban settings. As biodiversity is
also central to cultures, cultural traditions and
overall well-being, building on the ﬁndings of the
chapters on traditional medicine and nutrition in
this volume, this often-neglected dimension of
health will be discussed in the fourth section of
this chapter.

2. Biodiversity and mental health
Mental health is deﬁned by WHO as “a state of
well-being in which every individual realizes his
or her own abilities, can cope with the normal
stresses of life, can work productively and
fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her
or his community” (WHO 2001). In addition to an
increase in the incidence of NCDs such as as heart
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
stroke and cancer, mental disorders contribute to a
signiﬁcant proportion of the global disease burden
(Beaglehole and Bonita 2008; Beaglehole et al.
2011). Depression alone accounts for 4.3% of the
global burden of disease and is among the largest
single causes of disability worldwide, particularly
for women (WHO 2013).

Between 1990 and 2010 alone, major depressive
disorders increased by 37% (Murray et al. 2012).
People with schizophrenia and psychosis suﬀer
from poorer physical health and die on average
15–20 years earlier than the general population
(Schizophrenia Commission 2012). This is
aggravated by sedentary lifestyles, poor diets,
smoking and weight gain from antipsychotic
medications and antidepressants, in turn
associated with an increased risk of obesity,
cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Schizophrenia
Commission 2012).
Promoting physical activity in people and knowing
more about where people with mental health
problems should recreate could, therefore, be more
of a public health priority. Little is known about
the types of environments that can best support
physical activity in this population or what types
of environment alleviate – or aggravate – psychotic
symptoms.
Green spaces in urban settings are linked to stress
reduction (Roe et al. 2013; Aspinall et al. 2013;
Ward Thompson et al. 2012), neighbourhood
social cohesion (Maas et al. 2009), reductions
in crime and violence (Branas et al. 2011; Kuo
and Sullivan 2001; Garvin et al. 2013), and a
range of other health beneﬁts associated with
psychological, cognitive and physiological health
(see Box 1; for recent reviews, see Sandifer et al.
2015; Logan 2015 and Rook et al. 2013). Green
space and tree canopy percentage have also been
found to have a strong inverse correlation with
objective measures of depression, anxiety and
stress (Beyer et al. 2014)
There is strong evidence for the benefits of
interaction with nature – including domestic
animals, and wild animals in wild settings – in
treatments for depression, anxiety and behavioural
problems, particularly in children and teenagers
(e.g. Kuo and Taylor 2004; Markevych et al. 2014;
Wells 2014; Roe and Aspinall 2011a). It has been
argued that contact with nature is important for

² Pretty et al. (2008) embraced these diﬀerent perspectives in the following way: “There is a common recognition around the
world that the diversity of life involves both the living forms (biological diversity) and the world views and cosmologies of
what life means (cultural diversity).”

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 201

childhood development, and children who grow up
with knowledge about the natural world and the
importance of conservation may be more likely
to conserve nature themselves as adults (Kahn Jr
& Kellert 2002; Taylor et al. 2006). Conversely, a
growing number of studies have suggested that
children, particularly in developed countries,
increasingly suffer from a “nature-deficit
disorder”,³ due to a reduction in the time spent
playing outdoors, potentially a result of increased
use of technology, and parental and societal fears
for child safety (Mustapa et al. 2015; Derr and
Lance 2012; McCurdy et al. 2010; Godbey 2009).⁴
Nature connectedness refers to the degree to which
individuals include nature as part of their identity
through a sense of oneness between themselves
and the natural world (Dutcher et al. 2007; Schultz
2002). Beyond an evolutionary aﬃliation to other
life on earth, the hypothesis here is that a sense
of connection between one’s self and biodiversity
is also critical for mental, social, physical and
cultural health. Re-developing this connection
has been described as a series of steps involving
the acquisition of knowledge (information about
nature), developing an understanding based
on physical experiences in nature, and moving
towards being connected and committed (Zylstra
2014).
People with high nature connectedness tend to
have frequent, long-term contact with nature
and spend the most time outdoors (Chawla 1999),
exhibit ecologically aware attitudes and behaviours
(Nisbet et al. 2009; Parks Canada, 2011; Wellman
et al. 1982; Williams & Huﬀman, 1986), and
are happier (Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014). These
characteristics translate to being more supportive
of conservation and predict greater likelihood to
express environmental concern (Dutcher et al.
2007; Mayer and Frantz 2004).

Recent studies have shown that it is not only the
availability and quantity of greenery that matters,
but also the quality and depth of the green spaces,
in terms of species richness and heterogeneity
(e.g. Werner and Zahner 2010; Sandifer et al.
2015). Measurable positive associations between
species richness, including microbial diversity,
and aspects of psychological well-being have
been demonstrated, suggesting that habitat
heterogeneity could be a cue to the perceptions of,
and positive outcomes from, biodiversity (Shwartz
et al. 2014). Hence, the design and management
of green spaces in urban environments should
take biological complexity into consideration
for the enhancement of human well-being, on
top of the usual considerations of biodiversity
conservation that focuses on restoring the biotic
integrity of ecosystems themselves. Aspects of
biological complexity include species composition,
functional organization, relative abundance and
species numbers. These notions have been used
for hospital design (see Box 2).
As discussed in the chapters on microbial diversity
and nutrition in this volume, there is a growing
body of scientiﬁc evidence that demonstrates the
importance of (non-pathogenic) microbial inputs
from the environment and dietary patterns in
determining public health outcomes. An increasing
proportion of this emerging research speciﬁcally
examines the relationship between the human
microbiota, exposure to microbial biodiversity
through the natural and built environments,
and diets, with corresponding implications for
NCDs, including depression and anxiety (e.g. for a
recent review, see Logan 2015 and Rook 2013 and
references therein). Importantly, these studies also
consider how socioeconomic and environmental
factors may modulate and mediate health
outcomes (see also section 3 in this chapter). These
ﬁndings are also useful to inform the design of
urban landscapes that jointly promote the mental

³ A term coined by journalist Richard Louv in 2005
⁴ Some research has suggested that some children, particularly those from urban areas, are fearful of spending time in certain
natural habitats (woodland and wetland) owing to perceived threats from isolation, wild animals or the actions of other
people (Bixler & Floyd 1997). The biophilia hypothesis asserts that humans have an evolutionary aﬃliation to nature (Wilson
1984). Although those with strong traditional or local ecological knowledge bonds are more likely to have maintained strong
connections to the natural world, today more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, often reducing contact with
biodiversity to infrequent time spent in green spaces and visits to parks. Consequently, Western cultures are increasingly
concerned about the growing disconnect between humans and nature (Dallimer et al. 2012; Louv 2008).

202 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

health beneﬁts of exposure to green spaces and
biodiversity (including microbial diversity).
“Green spaces” and “natural environment” will
need explicit measures in research at this critical
intersection, to enable the development of
urban planning strategies in ways that maximize

co-beneﬁts associated with cognition, emotion
and sensation. In doing so it will become a part
of a more comprehensive approach to addressing
the growing global burden of NCDs, including
inflammatory, immunoregulatory and other
conditions.

Box 1. Enabling environments for mental health rehabilitation
Research by enny Roe and Peter A. Aspinall has indicated that some environments may be more
favourable to mood and cognitive recovery in people with severe mental health problems than
others. They compared the restorative bene ts of walking in urban and rural settings in a group
of adults with a range of mental health problems, including people with schizophrenia and other
psychotic disorders (N=24). Two aspects of psychological restoration were examined, rstly mood,
and the other using personal project techniques (Little 1983) to capture cognitive re ection on
everyday life tasks. Participants walked in small groups of around 8 in a variety of urban and rural
settings in central Scotland. As anticipated – and consistent with restorative theory – a walk in a
natural setting was advantageous to mood recovery and cognitive re ection on the management of
personal projects. However, contrary to other evidence showing negative e ects of walking in urban
settings on people with psychotic disorders (Ellett et al. 2008), in this instance, a walk in a busy
historic urban district generated a positive change in mental well-being.
Supporting qualitative research (via semi-structured interviews) (N=24) indicated stronger
preferences for walking in the natural setting further a eld, as compared to walking in the
hometown; being away from their everyday environments allowed mental health patients to escape
stigmatization and facilitated anonymity. Symptom relief from psychosis and schizophrenia included
a reduction in auditory hallucinations (i.e. hearing noises) in the natural setting.
The research concludes that walking in some urban environments (for example, historic districts and
city green spaces) – as well as further a eld natural settings – o ers the potential to promote physical
activity and mental well-being in people with severe mental health problems (Roe and Aspinall 2011b).
These ndings have in general informed UK health policy and in particular initiatives such as the
Scottish Government s “green prescriptions” and the Green Exercise Partnership between the National
Health Service (NHS) Health Scotland, Forestry Commission Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage,
which are designed to promote greater use of the outdoors for better health and quality of life.

Box 2. Designing for a healing environment: Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore
Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, a 590-bed acute care hospital in Singapore, aptly presents a case where
urban greenery, including biological complexity in terms of species richness and habitat heterogeneity,
has been incorporated into the hospital design to reap the associative bene ts of healing and wellbeing. The hospital s concept of “a healing environment” emphasizes the nexus between greenery and
well-being in three aspects: rst, direct bene ts of greenery towards the healing of patients; second,
capitalizing on the nexus to improve the livability of the urban environment for both the individual
resident and the community; and third, promoting biological complexity in terms of a biodiverse and
heterogeneous environment that also contributes to human well-being.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 203

The wards and corridors of the hospital are
designed to support patients in the healing
process. At ground, the nexus between
biodiversity and well-being is explored
through the richly planted parklands and
the ishun Pond, whose lush environs are
attractive not only to patients and visitors,
but also to residents in the surrounding
neighbourhoods. The promenade along
the edges of the pond and the hospital
gardens connects to the adjacent housing
estate and train station beyond the hospital
grounds, providing seamless access to the
surrounding communities. The gardens
have attractive water features, including a
designed cascading waterfall, adding sound
and movement to the environment.
To extend the concept of integration with
the community, a rooftop farm grows
food crops that are tended by community
volunteers and former patients. The crops
provide a relatively cheap source of organic
food of approximately 208 kg per year for the hospital kitchen, while the harvesting and sale of
produce to the public contributes to the hospital green fund. There are over 50 species of fruit trees,
and 50 vegetables and herbs in this rooftop farm. The volunteers get to socialize, and bringing their
harvest home is both a source of pride and joy, and a therapeutic activity, particularly for the older
volunteers who are mostly retirees.
The planting in and around the hospital emphasizes biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity,
particularly in terms of birds and butter ies, and fruit trees. In the pond, 100 species of SouthEast Asian tropical sh have been recorded, some of which were thought to have become extinct.
There are reported sightings of 48 species of birds, 44 species of butter ies and 21 species of
dragon ies and damsel ies. The “medicinal garden” has over 100 species of medicinal plants used
in traditional medicine. The pond with its owering plants at the edges, and its oating mounds,
attracts butter ies, dragon ies as well as bird species, which in turn feed on the sh, creating a
microecosystem of its own.
The hospital epitomizes the idea of a healing environment in its numerous design dimensions
and innovations. It exempli es an urban asset that goes beyond incorporating landscapes for their
aesthetic qualities, and also purposefully and meaningfully seeks to bring biodiversity into urban
spaces, all of which contribute to a pervasive sense of well-being that extends to the surrounding
community.
Alexandra Health are acknowledged for their input and support. For further information on the
gardens and landscaping, see Alexandra Health (2010).

204 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

3. Biodiversity, green space,
exercise and health

3.1 Biodiversity, recreation and
OHLVXUHDQGSK\VLFDOƩWQHVV

The relationships between biodiversity and
good physical health are inherently complex and
multidimensional, with multiple confounding
and interrelated sociocultural, geographical and
economic mediators. The studies that exist often
fail to provide clear empirical evidence of the
eﬀects of biodiversity on physical health and wellbeing. While the majority of studies presented
herein are examples of where a potential positive
association between biodiversity and physical
health could be inferred, a large number of
studies also report inconclusive results (Lovell et
al. 2014) and some report inverse relationships
(Huynen et. al 2004; Dallimer et al. 2012).
Further multidisciplinary study is needed to more
clearly establish causal links to inform policy.
Current analyses are methodologically diverse
and frequently focus only on urban and western
settings that are insuﬃciently interdisciplinary
to test postulated relationships. Research needs
to have adequate involvement of the expertise
and standard methodological practices of
the social sciences (including psychology and
sociology), health sciences (including physiology
and epidemiology) and environmental sciences
(particularly ecology), rather than be dominated by
selected disciplines, as is so often the case. In the
few studies in which a direct causal relationship
between biodiversity and physical and mental
health has been sought, it is frequently the case
that precise physiological elements of physical
health have not been correspondingly measured.
With notable recent exceptions, including those
noted above, few studies rigorously measure both
biodiversity and speciﬁc physiological eﬀects on
physical health. In addition, the evidence we have
is from mostly aﬄuent urban Western societies,
and further exploration across a range of cultures,
geographical regions and socioeconomic groups
is needed, including rural and developing world
settings.

“Time spent directly experiencing and interacting with
nature (a problematic term to deﬁne) has been shown
to improve psychological health and well-being, as well
as increase physical activity levels…” (Pretty et al. 2008).

As human societies industrialize and urban centres
continue to expand, the physical relationship
with biodiversity sometimes shifts from a direct
consumptive interaction to one of more abstracted
recreational and leisure activity (Keniger et al.
2013). Regardless of our socioeconomic status,
setting or motivations of subsistence or leisure,
our exposure to and interactions with biodiversity
range from passive engagement from afar (e.g.
viewing through a window) to being within
a natural space (e.g. sitting in a park), to the
direct active engagement of ﬁshing, hunting or
gardening. Much of our current body of evidence
documenting the health eﬀects of exposure to
natural biodiverse environments is gleaned from
urban, Western, developed world settings (Lovell
et al. 2014; for a recent review, see Townsend
et al. 2015). While biodiversity has rarely been
measured directly in these studies, they do provide
emerging evidence that interacting with natural
surroundings in urban settings can deliver a
range of measurable beneﬁts (Bauman 2004;
Brown et al. 2007; Blair & Morris 2009), including
positive eﬀects on physical health (Berger & Motl
2000; Street et al. 2007; Rethorst et al. 2009),
psychological well-being (Barton & Pretty 2010;
Kaplan & Kaplan 1989; Kaplan 1995), cognitive
ability (Ulrich 1983) and social cohesion (Maas et
al. 2006). Conversely, there is empirical evidence
at a global scale that more biodiverse settings
correlate with poorer health outcomes (Huynen
et. al 2004) and on a local scale, some self-reported
measures of well-being are inversely related with
natural biological diversity (Dallimer et al. 2012).
While interacting with nature can deliver health
beneﬁts, the converse is also true and the speciﬁc
role of biodiversity in effecting these health
outcomes is still not well understood.
It is clear that exercise and physical activity have
positive impacts on health. Physical activity has
been shown to lead to improved physical ﬁtness

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 205

and health (Bauman 2004; Brown et al. 2007;
Blair & Morris 2009), including a reduced risk
of several NCDs, as well as improved immune
function. Engaging in regular physical activity
has also been linked to improved mental health,
including lowering depression, through a
combination of physiological eﬀects as well as
through increased social engagement (Berger
& Motl 2000; Street et al. 2007; Rethorst et al.
2009). Significant proportions of the global
population are experiencing epidemics of NCD,
including heart and other circulatory diseases,
diabetes type 2, and mental health disorders
(Beaglehole et al. 2011; Collins et al. 2011).
Particularly in urban settings, the management
and prevention of some NCDs may be linked to
the use, for recreational and ﬁtness purposes,
of natural environments or “green spaces”, as
outlined below. The policy implications for such a
linkage are clear: as the global population becomes
increasingly urbanized, cross-sectoral consultation
between diﬀerent sectors, including the health,
conservation, transport and other sectors, will be
key to the development of healthy and sustainable
urban landscapes (Box 3). As the chapters on

climate change and sustainable consumption in
this volume indicate, evaluating and monitoring
cumulative health impacts that may result from
policy prescriptions (including as they relate to
urban planning) will therefore be critical. This
includes the need for infrastructure and policy
measures, in both developed and developing
countries, that support active transit, reduce our
reliance on fossil fuels, and concretize the goal
of an “urban advantage”, which itself “must be
actively created and maintained” through robust
and coherent policy interventions (Rydin et al.
2012).
Access to parks and green spaces within urban
residential neighbourhoods has been shown to be
an important conduit to generating better physical
and mental health for individuals and communities
(Kessel et al. 2009; Maas et al. 2006; O’Campo et
al. 2009). Urban parks and green spaces provide
places for sport and active recreation, places to
relax and enjoy solitude, places to meet other
people and socialize, and places that evoke feelings
of connection to the natural world (Maller et al.
2008). A reduction in the prevalence of several

Box 3. Urban design for active transport and a healthy human habitat
The urban landscape has become the prototypical human habitat. Commuting by foot or bicycle,
so-called “active transport”, o ers the dual bene ts of reducing air pollution emissions – a key
driver of anthropogenic climate change – and promoting opportunities for personal tness.
Physical inactivity is a risk factor for NCDs and is estimated to be responsible for 3.2 million deaths
annually (Lim et al. 2013). Many studies show signi cant global health bene ts from shifting to
environmentally sustainable practices. For example, active commuting in Shanghai, China, reduced
risk of colon cancer by 48% in men and 44% in women (Hou et al. 2004), and active transport
led to an 11% reduction in cardiovascular risk across sample populations from Europe and Asia
(Hamer and Chida 2007). If active transport scenarios reached the levels of those in Copenhagen,
costs averted for England and Wales NHS would approximate US 25 billion over a 20-year period
( arret et al. 2012). In the United States (US), comparing cities with the highest versus lowest levels
of active transport, obesity and diabetes rates were 20% and 23% lower, respectively (Pucher et al.
2010), and over 1200 lives could be saved annually in the upper Midwest, US, by replacing short car
trips with bike transport (Grabow et al. 2012). More public health bene ts in developed countries
accrue from greater levels of exercise (Grabow et al. 2012; Pucher et al. 2010; Woodcock et al. 2009;
Maizlish et al. 2013; Hankey et al. 2012), whereas in low-income countries with air quality problems,
the bene ts are more from reduced air pollution (Woodcock et al. 2009). Pathways and bikeways in
parks and other green spaces will facilitate the adoption of active transport as a viable alternative.

206 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

NCDs and their risk factors can be linked to the
quantity, proximity and usability of “natural”
spaces in the local (residential) environment
(Carter & Horwitz 2014; Bowler et al. 2010;
Lachowycz & Jones 2011; Lee and Maheswaran
2010; Mitchell and Popham 2007, 2008). Results
suggest that perception of park quality is one
important factor in encouraging their use for
physical activity (Crawford et al., 2008), lowering
psychosocial distress (Francis et al. 2012), and
supporting better self-reported general health and
physical function (Carter & Horwitz, 2014). Bjork
et al. (2008) showed that participants with “lush”
environmental features within 300 m of the home
engaged in greater self-reported physical activity
than those with other environmental feature
types. Similarly, de Jong et al. (2012) detected a
positive association between “lush” environments
and physical activity, although Annestedt et al.

(2012) noted no association. Tilt et al. (2007)
also found positive associations between walking
and subjective assessments of overall “greenness.”
Other relevant ﬁndings include proximity to large
neighbourhood parks being positively associated
with increased physical activity (Giles-Corti
et al., 2005), neighbourhood greenness being
positively associated with increased walking, social
coherence and local social interaction (Sugiyama et
al. 2008), and with reduced body weight (Pereira
et al. 2013), improvements in park infrastructure
resulting in increased use (Veitch et al. 2012
and Veitch et al. 2014), and how the design of
open spaces may inﬂuence the type of use and
length of stay (Goliˇcnika & Ward Thompson
2010). A concerted eﬀort is being made by some
governments to maximize these health beneﬁts
through park management (see Box 4).

Box 4. Active in Parks Program, Victoria, Australia
The Active in Parks Program forms partnerships between park managers and health and community
service agencies to connect people to parks and open spaces to improve physical and mental
well-being. The outreach is through tailored activities that increase people s physical activity and
overcome barriers, such as transport, lack of awareness and fear, to support their access to parks and
other natural open spaces.
The Program commenced in 2010 as a pilot in Geelong, a major regional city in Victoria, Australia.
It addresses a number of key health issues, including social isolation, mental health, physical
inactivity and priority chronic diseases. Geelong is an area with a prevalence of preventable diseases,
particularly in low socioeconomic communities, and is surrounded by outstanding parks and open
spaces that are now part of the solution to getting more people more physically and socially active
more often, and improving individual and community health and well-being. This is the “Healthy
Parks Healthy People” approach to park
management.
The Program includes ve elements:
Green referrals: physically inactive people at
risk of developing or already su ering from
chronic illness are referred by their health
professional to a physical activity programme
based in local parks. They are supported by
quali ed instructors and encouraged to do
ongoing exercise.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 207

Welcome to new migrants: park outings involving physical activity, such as sur ng, shing and
beach walking, help newly settled Victorians from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds to
independently engage in physical activity outdoors and reduce their risk of being socially isolated.
Youth park ambassadors: secondary school students at risk of developing a mental illness and/or
disengaging in school take part in outdoor adventure activities to build con dence, resilience and
connection with nature, then encourage others to get “Active in Parks”.
Adolescent education: young people with type 1 diabetes learn how to manage their chronic illness
and treatment while being physically active in nature and making social connections with others.
Parks walks: regular, volunteer walking groups enjoy parks and open spaces, while strengthening
community connectedness and encouraging regular outdoor enjoyment of nature.
Participants have credited the Program with restoring their con dence, improving their motor skills
and, most importantly, giving them a more positive attitude towards physical activity. Post-Program
surveys have unanimously rated the contribution of the Active in Parks Program as bene cial to
health and well-being.
Almost 100% of Program participants from uly 2013 to December 2013 reported gaining
friendships from the Program, with 30% of participants now meeting independently on a regular
basis. In 2014, over 66% of respondents reported that the Program increased the time they spent in
a park, and over 86% reported that the Program changed their attitude/behaviour towards physical
activity. Over 93% of respondents planned on continuing to exercise on their own.

Whereas some studies show that the use of and
exposure to the natural environment is associated
with better health (Keniger et al. 2013; Lee et al.
2011; Thompson-Coon et al. 2011), others more
explicitly link “condition” of the environment
to particular health outcomes (Cummins et al.
2005; Mitchell and Popham 2008; van Dillen
et al. 2012). Environmental decline, including
loss of biodiversity, has also been shown to
have greater adverse health eﬀects, particularly
on mental health, than the impacts associated
with economic decline, nutritional threats and
pollution (Speldewinde et al. 2009).
This evidence suggests that among populations
for whom access to natural green spaces is
limited, such as those in poorer inner-urban
areas of large cities, improving that access can
encourage regular physical activity, improve life
expectancy and decrease health complaints. The
psychological beneﬁts and social outcomes may
also increase motivation to further exercise and
use the green space. Much of this is thought

to be due to the perceptions of favourable
environmental conditions for people to exercise,
thus improving motivation to continue physical
activity. Despite the evidence that urban “green”
space can increase physical activity and contribute
to other dimensions of health, little explicit
consideration has been given to the importance
of the biodiversity itself (versus simply green or
natural space) in delivering improved physical
function or health.
We have scant evidence from studies in which
standard ecological survey methodology has been
undertaken alongside an assessment of physical
health. These few studies measure physical
health as subjective well-being rather than
measuring speciﬁc physiological attributes that
reﬂect physical ﬁtness or well-being. An urban
Australian study found that personal well-being
and neighbourhood satisfaction were positively
related to greater species richness and abundance
of birds, and with increased vegetative cover and
density (Luck et al. 2011). In urban UK, Dallimer et

208 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

al. (2012) and Fuller et al. (2007) also showed that
bird species richness was positively associated with
measures of well-being, while butterﬂy species
richness was not shown to have any association.
Fuller et al. (2007) found that enhanced well-being
was positively related to increased plant species
richness, whereas Dallimer et al. (2012) showed
a decline in well-being under such conditions.
Variation was also seen in relation to tree cover,
with Dallimer et al. (2012) reporting a positive
relationship with well-being and Fuller et al. (2007)
ﬁnding no association. Local-scale urban studies
on the links between biodiversity in green leisure
spaces and self-reported well-being do suggest that
exposure to biodiversity may have demonstrable
positive impacts on health (Dallimer et al. 2012;
de Jong et al. 2012; Fuller et al. 2007; Tilt et
al. 2007), although without understanding the
speciﬁc eﬀected aspects of physiological health.
These variations may in part be explained by
diﬀering cultural contexts, and even by diﬀerences
in how various groups within a community value
their local landscapes, biodiversity or green spaces.
Such perspectives may in part be informed by
socioeconomic factors, or by the degree to which
different groups feel they can influence local
decision-making aﬀecting their environment (see,
for example, Cutts et al. 2009; Ernstson 2013).
Some studies do measure sets of physiological
indicators of physical health in relation to natural
green space but do not measure biodiversity within
these natural settings. There is a growing body of
evidence to suggest that interactions with nature
can alleviate some of the negative physiological
eﬀects of stress within urban environments. A
study from the Netherlands showed that outdoor
gardening led to signiﬁcantly greater reduction in
the stress hormone cortisol than indoor reading
(Van den Berg & Custers 2011). This study cannot,
however, determine the relative importance of

the activity associated with the gardening and
the natural components of the environment (e.g.
biodiversity) in promoting stress reduction. Some
studies have concluded that the physiological
eﬀects of stress are reduced in forest environments
and other natural environments.⁵ For example, a
Swiss study also found that a decrease in stressinduced headaches was signiﬁcantly related to
physical activity in parks (Hansmann et al. 2007).
Other physiological benefits that have been
studied are the relationships between natural
spaces and healing. In a study of cholecystectomy
patients in the US, postoperative healing time was
signiﬁcantly reduced for patients in a hospital room
with a window view of nature in comparison with
patients with a view of a brick wall (Ulrich 1984).
Patients with a view of trees also required fewer
painkillers, received fewer negative evaluative
comments from nurses and had fewer postsurgical
complications. Another study demonstrates that
outdoor therapeutic camping trips reduce the
probability of relapse among recovering substance
abusers (Shin et al. 2001).
Physiological responses to nature have also
been shown to vary according to gender. A UK
study shows that cardiovascular and respiratory
disease mortality rates among men decreased
with increasing green space, with no signiﬁcant
relationship for women (Richardson and Mitchell
2010). Ulrich (1981) found that the positive
physiological responses of exposure to nature,
as measured by heart rate and alpha amplitude
while viewing images of nature, were signiﬁcantly
stronger for women.
Studies on the eﬀects of indoor plants in oﬃce
and classroom environments have also shown that
their presence can improve physical health (Fjeld
et al.1998) and reduce the occurrence of illness
(Han 2009; Bringslimark et al. 2007).⁶ As with

⁵ A Chinese experimental study (Yamaguchi et al. 2006) measured stress in healthy males before and after exercise in both a
forest and an urban environment using salivary amylase activity as a physiological indicator. Enzyme activity signiﬁcantly
reduced after exercise in forest environments.
⁶ A Norwegian study showed that the presence of plants in oﬃces correlated with a reduction in dry skin, hoarse throat,
coughing and fatigue, suggesting that the introduction of foliage plants into an indoor environment may reduce symptoms
of physical discomfort and improve health (Fjeld et al. 1998). Related studies on the eﬀects of indoor vegetation have found
that the diversity and presence of indoor plants in an oﬃce (Bringslimark et al. 2007) and a classroom (Han 2009) reduce
the occurrence and frequency of time taken oﬀ due to ill health.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 209

many of the studies examining this relationship,
and noted often already, nature is often not clearly
deﬁned, biodiversity is not explicitly measured
and there is a lack of studies in rural, developing
countries in equatorial latitudes.

3.1.1 ,he Eoderating and Eediating
inÎuen;e of so;ioe;onoEi; status and
;ulture
Socioeconomic status (and sociocultural context
to a lesser degree) is well established as a
determinant of health, with strong associations
found between contributory factors such as
income and employment or livelihood security,
and health and well-being. Similarly, and as noted
previously, exposure to and use of environments
containing biodiverse elements have been shown
to relate to health and well-being. However, it
is only recently that the interactions between
these two determinants of health – natural
environments and socioeconomic status – have
begun to be investigated and, therefore, integrated
into and considered within socioecological or
ecosystem service models.
Epidemiological work (predominantly undertaken
in residential urban areas) shows us that there is
often a linear relationship between proximity to,
or quantity of (biodiverse) natural environments⁷
within the residential living environment and
health or well-being outcomes (Carter and Horwitz
2014). However, these relationships are potentially
confounded by the likelihood that exposure and
access to a large quantity of better-quality natural
environments is strongly inﬂuenced by the greater
choices and resources of populations with higher
socioeconomic status (i.e. those with higher
incomes and social and individual capital – who
therefore enjoy better health and well-being –
can aﬀord to move to neighbourhoods with larger
proportions of green spaces and biodiversity).

A number of studies have investigated whether
the presence of larger amounts of green space
has a disproportionate impact on the health
and well-being of those with the lowest levels of
socioeconomic status (e.g. Dadvand et al. 2012;
Logan 2015). In the Netherlands, Maas et al.
(2006) found the strongest associations between
proximity to natural environments and health
for people with the lowest socioeconomic status;
similarly, de Vries et al. (2003) found stronger
relationships for housewives, the elderly and “lower
educated” people. Research using UK data found
lower rates of income deprivation-related health
inequalities in all-cause mortality and circulatory
disease⁸ among those living in the greenest
places (Mitchell & Popham 2008). Importantly,
no association was found when considering
outcomes unlikely to have an association with
greater exposure to natural spaces (deaths from
lung cancer and intentional self-harm). Nearby
natural environments have also been found to
help women in low-income groups to better cope
with stress (Jennings et al. 2012). These studies
suggest that people with lower incomes and facing
other forms of social and economic disadvantage
do have better health when exposed to larger
quantities of natural environments. It has been
suggested that the presence of attractive, highquality natural environments (in conjunction
with various other factors) moderates the health
eﬀects of long-term deprivation (Cairns-Nagi &
Bambra 2013). Further evidence has underlined
the potential importance of the “quality” of
the environment; using the results of the UK
Census, larger quantities of green space in the
living environment were associated with poorer
health for those living in suburban low-income
areas (Mitchell & Popham 2007). Importantly, it
has been found that (e.g. Coen et al. 2006) green
spaces are likely to be of poorer quality in lowerincome areas.

⁷ The vast majority of this work has not sought to deﬁne the characteristics of the natural environment beyond contrasting
these “green spaces” with built urban spaces. Also, it is clear that concepts of green space, and discussions of “access to
countryside” are not relevant to large numbers of people, including many local and indigenous communities and diﬀuse
rural populations in much of the world.
⁸ Outcomes theorized to be inﬂuenced by exposure to or use of green spaces, through for instance mechanisms such as
physical activity or lowered psychological stress.

210 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

UNITED NATIONS PHOTO / FLICKR

Recognition of these disproportionate impacts
of high-quality natural environments and
biodiversity to the health of those with the
lowest levels of socioeconomic status has led
statutory bodies, such as Natural England and the
Forestry Commission in the UK, to adopt policies
(for instance, Accessible Natural Green Space
Standard⁹) encouraging or facilitating greater
equity of access.
Such policy interventions are welcome. In many
places, there is an inequitable spatial distribution
of biodiverse natural spaces (particularly in the
urban context) according to socioeconomic status
and other cultural and demographic factors (AstellBurt et al. 2014; Ernstson 2013). If you live in a
low-income urban neighbourhood you are likely
to have fewer and lower-quality green spaces and,
therefore, fewer opportunities to experience and
beneﬁt from biodiversity than people in higherincome neighbourhoods. Multiple descriptive
studies have also shown strong correlations
between neighbourhoods characterized by lower

socioeconomic status (or other factors such as
high immigrant populations) and proximity to
environments with lower levels of biodiversity
(Cohen et al. 2006, 2012; Hope et al. 2003;
Kabisch & Haase 2014; Kinzig et al. 2005; Martin
et al. 2004; Strohbach et al. 2009). Strohbach
et al. (2009), for instance, found that wealthier
neighbourhoods, which were typically situated
close to forests, parks, rivers and high-quality
green spaces, had a greater richness of species
than poorer neighbourhoods. The diﬀerences can
be stark. For example, Kinzig et al. (2005) found
an average of 28 avian species in parks in highincome areas compared with only 18 avian species
in parks in low-income areas.¹⁰
However, even where policies to facilitate exposure
to biodiverse environments are acted upon and
eﬀorts are made to improve accessibility, it still
may be the case that some groups, particularly
those with lower socioeconomic status, face
inequitable access (Jones et al. 2009).¹¹ Similar
disproportionate reliance on local environments

⁹ ‘Nature Nearby’ Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance. www.naturalengland.org.uk
¹⁰ This inequality could, in some cases, have profound implications. Quality of life is strongly inﬂuenced by one’s environment,
particularly for the poor and marginalized who most need access to high-quality, local biodiverse environments, as they are
likely to be unable to travel frequently for any great distance to experience these places (Kinzig et al. 2005).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 211

and biodiversity is also found for people with
lower socioeconomic status in low- and middleincome countries. While the mechanisms can
be fundamentally different, perhaps relating
more strongly to other determinants of health
such as adequate nutrition and clean water, the
ability to access, and to make use of, biodiversityrelated resources can have a greater impact on the
health and well-being of the poorest members of
a particular society (Daw et al. 2011; Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005; see also Dallimer
et al. 2012 ). Likewise, the loss of biodiversity is
likely to disproportionately impact on the health
and well-being of the poorest (Díaz et al. 2006;
Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010).
Raudsepp-Hearne et al. (2010) explored four
potential hypotheses (in relation to global
biodiversity loss) to explain why we are not able
to consistently show how biodiversity relates to
well-being: (i) we may be looking at the “wrong”
aspects of well-being, and the ones we have
considered may not be sensitive to environmental
inﬂuences, and that practices such as aggregation
could mask shifts in well-being (see also Lovell et
al. 2014 and Daw et al. 2011); (ii) our well-being
is only actually sensitive to certain environmental
influences, particularly those associated with
the provisioning services and especially food;
(iii) there has been a “decoupling” of human
well-being’s dependency on the environment
through technological and social innovation;
other factors such as access to mental health
care, the socioeconomic context or just familial
circumstances might exert a greater inﬂuence
than the natural environment. If the environment
has a relatively small impact then detecting that
inﬂuence is diﬃcult and the measures used need
to be sensitive; and (iv) well-being will be aﬀected

by environmental degradation but we have not
yet reached that point, and therefore the impacts
of the environment on well-being are not yet
detectable.

4. The contribution of biodiversity
to cultural ecosystem services that
support health and well-being
An accepted characterization for cultural services
is provided by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MEA) (2005), described as the nonmaterial beneﬁts people obtain from ecosystems
through spiritual enrichment, cognitive
development, reﬂection, recreation and aesthetic
experiences, and including ten diﬀerent forms of
values. Given the often discussed overlaps between
services, beneﬁts and values, and the consideration
of both use and non-use (or non-consumptive)
values of cultural ecosystem services, this chapter
follows the convention established by Milcu et al.
(2013) and others (e.g. Gee and Burkhard 2010) to
include existence, bequest and option values, and
the intrinsic value of ecosystems as a subcategory
of cultural ecosystem services.
In a comprehensive review, Pretty et al. (2008)
explored how biological and cultural diversity
intersect, describing “nature” as “the setting in
which cultural processes, activities and belief
systems develop, all of which feed back to shape
the local environment and its diversity”.¹² There
are of course other models that depict pathways
between biodiversity, culture, and physical and
mental health, but the point made here is that they
are extraordinarily diverse, where it is diﬃcult to
generalize or to derive universal statements.

¹¹ For example, Byrne et al. (2009) cite the case of Los Angeles’ Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the result
of policies in the 1970s which aimed to “to bring nature and recreational opportunities to socio-economically disadvantaged
communities in the USA”, but where visitors were found to be predominantly white and aﬄuent. Huynen et al. (2004)
describe the association between low socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity and poor access to biodiverse environments
as “yet another instance of urban environmental inequality”.
¹² They described four key bridges interlinking nature with culture: (i) beliefs, meanings and worldviews that underpin the way
humans see their place in nature; (ii) livelihoods, practices and resource management systems, where nature is managed;
(iii) knowledge bases and languages, where how people know the world governs behaviours, understanding and values that
shape human interactions with nature; and (iv) socially embedded norms and institutions, where normative rule systems
govern human interactions and behaviours towards the natural environment.

212 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

While many community-speciﬁc linkages between
health, culture and biodiversity have been
documented and measured, much of the evidence
for a more universal relationship is sparse beyond
anecdotal accounts. However, there is growing
recognition of the role of biodiversity and
ecosystem services in shaping broad perspectives
of the quality of life. The WHO Quality Of Life
Assessment (WHOQOL) was devised as a method
to determine an individual’s quality of life in the
context of their culture and value systems; use
of the WHOQOL method has shown that the
environmental domain – including aspects of
safety, security, access to resources and interaction
with local environments – is an important part
of the quality-of-life concept (WHOQOL Group
1994; see also Skevington 2009).
Clark et al. (2014) conceptualized the direct
linkages between biodiversity and human health
via disease regulation and pollution control,
and the indirect linkages between biodiversity
and human health as being “cultural”, where
biodiversity yields cultural goods, cultural values
are placed on those goods, and when they are
derived there is a well-being beneﬁt and therefore
a human health outcome.
Culturally competent health practice must
account for the inﬂuence of culture on attitudes,
beliefs and behaviours, including the relationship
between people and their local biodiversity and
ecosystem services. The relationship between
culture and population health is complex. The
delivery of primary health care at the community
level is generally organized around predominant
local cultural norms, but must also increasingly
account for cultural diversity and the cultural
characteristics of minority groups.
For each of the well-known categories of cultural
ecosystem services, it can be demonstrated that
biodiversity plays a role in the way physical and
mental health and well-being have been or can be
derived.
Cultural diversity. Reciprocal relationships have
been described between cultural diversity and
biological diversity in the diversity of life, at

whatever levels of richness; they are inseparable.
Formal recognition of cultural diversity has
demonstrable health beneﬁts for cultures (often
minorities) that have suﬀered from domination
and oppression; replacement with other biological
elements might have poorer health outcomes for
the same reasons.
Spiritual and religious values. Sacred elements of
the biota, worship of biota, kindness and gratitude
toward biota together or individually make a
contribution to spiritual well-being, and a sense
of wholeness and being “at one”, everywhere and
forever (connecting the present with the past and
the future).
Knowledge systems (traditional and formal). This
includes knowledge of pharmaceuticals, food
products and knowledge contributing to rituals,
and socializing processes. These together provide
people with understanding on when and where
to use biological materials for alleviating poor
health or disease, including when and where to use
them for better diet and nutrition, and spiritual
well-being.
Educational values. Ecosystems and their
components and processes provide the basis
for both formal and informal education in
many societies. These learned capacities provide
the ability to avoid environmental hazards
and physical injury or death, and to alleviate
psychosocial stress-related disorders.
Inspiration. Ecosystems in general, and elements
of biodiversity in particular, provide a rich source
of inspiration for art, folklore, national symbols,
architecture and advertising. These contribute to
well-being in a myriad of ways.
Aesthetic values. People ﬁnd beauty or aesthetic
value in various aspects of ecosystems, as reﬂected
in the support for parks, scenic drives and the
selection of housing locations. These values have
been linked to stress relief, with therapeutic
beneﬁts.
Social relations. Ecosystems inﬂuence the types of
social relations that are established in particular
cultures. Sharing ecosystem experiences, like

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 213

volunteering for land and water rehabilitation or
species conservation activities, has been shown to
have positive psychosocial outcomes.
Sense of place. Many people value the “sense of
place” that is associated with recognized features
of their environment, including elements of the
biota (rare, common, iconic, endemic) and aspects
of the ecosystem. Psychosocial disorders have
been described to be associated with the loss of, or
inability to derive, solace connected to the present
state of one’s home environment (see Albrecht et
al. 2007).
Cultural heritage values. Many societies place high
value on the maintenance of either historically
important landscapes (“cultural landscapes”) or
culturally signiﬁcant species. Protection of heritage
values will enhance cultural recognition, with
health and well-being beneﬁts, particularly where
done without the continuation of any domination
or oppression that might have occurred in the past,
allowing the continuation of cultural practices
where they have health-related outcomes.
Recreation and ecotourism. People often choose
where to spend their leisure time based in part
on the characteristics of the natural or cultivated
landscapes in a particular area. Recreation also
occurs in relation to animals or plants, caring
for pets, or gardens, parks and reserves. Health
outcomes relate to physical exercise, fitness
and the myriad contributions this makes to
physical and mental health, and the alleviation of
psychosocial disorders.

4.1 Indigenous health and well-being
The key literature on biocultural diversity – the
intimate, inextricable links between linguistic,
cultural and biological diversity, as manifestations
of the diversity of life – demonstrate their
overlapping global distributions, and the common

threats they face (see the major review on this
topic by Maﬃ 2005): “… the ongoing worldwide
loss of biodiversity is paralleled by and seems
interrelated to the ‘extinction crisis’ aﬀecting
linguistic and cultural diversity”.¹³ Maﬃ reviews
the studies that have shown overlaps (also referred
to as correlations) between linguistic diversity at
the global level, and both vertebrate diversity
and plant diversity. Hypotheses explaining this
fact are contested but invariably detail the role of
sociocultural factors, along with biogeographical
factors.
To some, the intricacies of the relationships
between linguistic, cultural and biological diversity
suggest a co-evolution, or reciprocal development.
Gorenﬂo et al. (2012) suggest that, in many
instances, this co-occurrence between biological
and linguistic diversity may hint at some form
of functional connection – perhaps founded
in a need to describe culturally or nutritionally
important species, habitats or landscape elements
– though there is much local variability and the
relationships are complex (see also Gavin and
Sibanda 2012; Axelsen and Manrubia 2014).
Pretty et al. (2008), drawing on the work of Berkes
(2008) and others, conclude that cultural diversity
and biological diversity are reciprocally developed
and maintained.¹⁴ The links between language
and biodiversity also reﬂect a wider connection
between nature and a community’s sense of place.
Loss of language, and its concomitant cultural loss,
may be a source of considerable demoralization
and anguish. In this sense, and assuming the
reciprocal relation, biodiversity loss is indirectly or
directly associated with these health consequences.
Moreover, the links between biodiversity and
cultural and linguistic diversity suggest that the
protection of human rights can be connected to
the aﬃrmation of human responsibilities toward
and stewardship over humanity’s heritage in
nature and culture (Maﬃ 2005).

¹³ Maﬃ describes the philosophical tradition that regards linguistic diversity as an adequate correlate for cultural diversity,
citing Harmon’s work that the perception of diversity is the basic condition for the functioning of human consciousness,
and Wollock’s observation that all great metaphysical traditions recognize endless diversity as the reality of the planet.
¹⁴ “How we know the world… governs our behaviour and practices that, in turn, shape landscapes, which form a cultural
archive of human endeavours. Amidst a diversity of cultures comes a diversity of meanings, leading to a diversity of actions,
providing an array of biodiversity outcomes.” (Pretty et al. 2008)

214 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Therapeutic and biocultural landscapes are an
important dimension to achieve health at the
local level. Survival and vitality of knowledge and
resources depend on the sociocultural contexts
in which they are embedded (see also the chapter
on traditional medicine in this volume). Typically,
such knowledge and resources are found to be
most vibrant among communities (speciﬁcally,
indigenous and local communities) close to
culturally important landscapes. These could
relate to socioecological production landscapes
(e.g. Satoyama in Japan) or conservation systems
(e.g. sacred groves, ceremonial sites) or therapeutic
landscapes (such as sacred healing sites). Such
landscapes and related traditional knowledge
practices contribute to health and well-being,
therefore necessitating a close inquiry into the
functional interlinkages within such systems, and
maintenance of their dynamism.
As described in the chapters on nutrition and
traditional medicines, indigenous peoples are
often a potent symbol of our human diversity of
culture, language and spirit. Many have also been

the guardians of our global biodiversity and its
medicines, foods, shelter and spiritual resources
for millennia – built on a holistic communal
view of humanity and its links to the ecosystem.
Yet now, in the new millennium, indigenous
peoples are among those most marginalized
within many nation states, they have the worst
health indicators, and their knowledge is fast
disappearing as their land is appropriated and
their environment destroyed.
But indigenous peoples also often have an intimate
knowledge of the other valuable living resources
available in their biodiverse settings – including
medicines and foods that are vital for global
and local health (Box 5, Box 6). Instances where
indigenous peoples have retained a profound
connection to the land and water and living
components of their territories, and instances
where socioeconomic and political forces have
combined to alienate indigenous peoples from their
cultural values and traditions, both demonstrate the
saliency of connections across biodiversity, cultural
knowledge, and human health and well-being.

Box 5. Biodiversity, essential for Mbya Guarani well-being and health
Those indigenous people that survive as hunters, gatherers and small-scale agriculturalists display
complex relationships between territory, biodiversity and ecodiversity (Montenegro 1992; 2006).
Among the Mbya Guarani who live in relatively self-decided isolation, like the communities of Tekoa
ma and Tekoa Kapi i vate in the subtropical forest of aboti (Misiones, Argentina), their well-being
and health system is the result of complex sustainable interactions. The main variables involved are
growing knowledge of the social and natural environment, e cient intergenerational transmission of
information, entire life educative schemes, lack of permanent private property and adaptive nomadic
behaviour. Their dominant long food chain strategy ensures direct and seasonal relationships with
di erent arrangements for biodiversity. Contemporary communities use, for example, 150 species
of medicinal plants, 35 plant species and 94 animal species as food, 54 species as raw materials for
rituals, artifacts, weapons and building, and 61 species as fuel (biomass) (Keller 2001; Montenegro
2004). Deforestation and biodiversity loss, mainly produced by foreigners, negatively a ects not
just their health system but also their rituals and well-being. Ñemongarai, the ceremony where the
opygua (= shaman) delivers names to children, demands – for boys – fruits of guembe epiphyte
(Philodendron bipinnatiƲdum) and honey from the wild bee jate’i (Tetragonisca angustula). Their
growing scarcity in abotí, as a result of biodiversity reduction, distresses both families of children
and the community (Montenegro 2004). Currently, most indigenous peoples develop hybrid
strategies that combine both traditional and foreign medicine (cf. Montenegro & Stephens 2006).
Indigenous well-being and health system are the result of “n” interacting variables organized in
seven Boxes (Figure 1), where biodiversity plus ecodiversity of the territory (A1) and of remnant

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 215

Parananse ecosystem (A2) are essential. Approaches that do not consider this minimum organization
of variables are unreal and cannot represent the complex source of indigenous well-being patterns
(Montenegro 2004).
ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Indigenous peoples health and the ecosystem
Group A: The ecosystem. A1: Indigenous territory and its biodiversity plus ecodiversity (>6000 hectares
for Tekoa Yma and Tekoa Kapi’i Yvate) within Paranaense subtropical ecosystem. A2: The remnant of the
Paranaense subtropical ecosystem (less than 5% of the original surface in Brazil and Argentina). Group
B: Resources obtained from the ecosystem. B1: Drinking water. B2: Fresh air. B3: Materials, e.g. for rituals,
artifacts and building. B4: Natural foods (plants, animals). B5: Space for houses (oo), temple (opy) and
the Tekoa (village). B6: Small-scale agriculture (mainly maize). B7: Medicinal plants. B8: Natural odours,
sounds and landscape colours. Group C: Well-being of the community, C1, and C2: “Ñande reko”, ancestral
happiness. Group D: Indigenous culture D1, which includes D2.1: Traditional medicine and D2.2: Traditional
health knowledge. Group E: Foreign culture, which includes E1.1: Non-indigenous culture and technology,
E1.2: Non-indigenous food; E2.1: Foreign medicine and E2.2: Foreign medicinal knowledge. Group F:
Indigenous health. Group G: Environmental destruction and biodiversity loss by deforestation, hunting
and other activities; G1: Environmental pressure (external, generated by foreign people and companies);
G2: Environmental pressure (internal, of indigenous activities, usually more diluted).

Source: Adapted from Montenegro 2004

216 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 6. Ko Omapere te wai, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
The largest lake in Northland, Omapere (1197 ha), once a wetland forest, is shallow (2.6 m) and
feeds the Utakura River that ows west to the Hokianga Harbour. Omapere is a taonga (treasure)
to Ngapuhi, who maintain manawhenua (ownership) and kaitiaki (guardianship) rights and
responsibilities through indigenous leadership. Ngapuhi have fought for the protection of Omapere,
articulating the signi cance of its ecological integrity: use of the lake is determined by the health of the
lake; the health of the lake and the health of the people are intertwined (Henwood and Henwood 2011).
Omapere was a “food basket” that supplied tuna (eel), torewai (freshwater mussels) and other
resources, including raupo (bulrush), kapangawha (clubrush) and harakeke ( ax).
Clearing of native vegetation and dairy farming in the surrounding catchment led to dense growths
of invasive oxygen weed (Tanner et al. 1986) that eventually collapsed, leaving Omapere turbid and
algae dominated (Champion and Burns 2001). In 1985, the Northland Area Health Board advised the
municipality to abandon its water for domestic supply due to a severe cyanobacterial bloom that
polluted the Utakura River and upper reaches of the Hokianga, leaving traditional sh and shell sh
stocks unsafe to eat (Grey 2012).
In 2004, tribal leadership brought together community stakeholders and responsible agencies to
identify restoration and management strategies, implement monitoring and shing regulations, and
commission studies. The ma uta ki tai (catchmentwide) process adopted emphasized the physical
and social interconnectedness of waterways and human activities, and recommended integrated
solutions. Community-led fencing of the lake edges, riparian planting and a local species nursery
plus farm environmental plans reduced fertilizer run-o and dissolved nitrogen and phosphate levels
(Grey 2012).
There have been no algal blooms in the lake since 2007 and recent improvements in water quality
have been linked to increased water- ltering torewai populations (Grey 2012). Many customary
community practices of water use in the catchment have resumed and in 2011 tuna returned to the
tables of Mokonui-a-rangi Marae, welcoming guests with this traditional kai (food) for the rst time in
more than a decade.

4.2 Biodiversity and local and
community health and well-being
Biodiversity is often central to cultures, cultural
traditions and cultural well-being. Species,
habitats, ecosystems and landscapes inﬂuence
forms of music, language, art, literature and dance.
They form essential elements of food production
systems, culinary traditions, traditional medicine,
rituals, worldviews, attachments to place and
community, and social systems. The divisive
nature of modern societies is evident in the gaps
between the rich and the poor, the able-bodied
and those with disabilities, the employed and the
unemployed, and these are increasingly obvious in

government policies and in life experiences. These
divisions not only undermine individual health
and well-being, but may also threaten community
cohesion, including among indigenous and local
communities.
As discussed in the chapter on traditional medicine,
indigenous and local communities often act as
stewards of local-living natural resources based on
generations of accumulated traditional knowledge,
including knowledge of agricultural biodiversity,
and biodiversity that supports traditional
medicinal knowledge. Where local traditions
and cultural identity are closely associated with

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 217

Box 7. Biodiversity, physical health and community well-being
The “Feel Blue, Touch Green” project (Townsend & Ebden 2006) in 2005 engaged people
experiencing depression and/or anxiety in hands-on conservation activities in partnership with
ANGAIR (the Anglesea and Airey s Inlet Society for Protection of Flora and Fauna). Participants
committed to 10 hours of conservation activities over 5–8 weeks, and the project and its impacts
were evaluated using mood scales and in-depth interviews. The results showed that participants
experienced positive emotional changes, with the most positive changes being an improved sense
of relaxation, higher levels of interest and greater life satisfaction. Participants also scored highly
in terms of improved health and happiness. These ndings were corroborated through interviews
in which participants identi ed the importance of the context for and the focus of the activities
(particularly the emphasis on biodiversity maintenance) in fostering the bene ts they were gaining
and in transforming their interactions with the natural environment and with other people.
Those “bridging” bene ts were echoed in a study in 2007 (O Brien et al. 2008); using similar
evaluation methods, motivations, barriers and bene ts of environmental volunteering in southern
Scotland and northern England were explored. The groups studied ranged from local groups working
with councils or NGOs to restore degraded local environments through to a group of volunteers who
had raised £350 000 to purchase a valley in Scotland and were working to return it to the “wildwood”
it would have been 6000 years ago! Volunteers typically experienced positive emotional changes
on all parameters except pain, and even that was interpreted positively as indicating that they had
worked hard, thus contributing to satisfaction!
Face-to-face interviews with volunteers and representatives of the organizations hosting the
activities con rmed the individual, community and ecosystem well-being bene ts, many of which
can be characterized using this notion of “bridging”.
However, the most telling example of this bridging across the divides came on the day when four
diverse groups came together at Eskdale in the Lake District to do some coppicing (removal of
invasive species to allow room for the native vegetation to grow). The volunteers included four
persons from “Friends of the Lake District”, 10 “Environment Agency” sta members (i.e. corporate
volunteers), two Lake District National Park volunteers, and two sta and three residents of West
House (a facility for adults with developmental delays).

biodiversity and ecosystem services, declines in
the availability and abundance of such resources
can have a detrimental impact on community wellbeing, with implications for mental and physical
health, social welfare and community cohesion
(see, for example, Box 8).
Eﬀorts to promote and sustain biodiversity have
been shown to build bridges across these divides
and to oﬀer new hope for individual, community

and ecosystem well-being. As the examples in
Box 7 indicate, there are many more beneﬁts that
ﬂow from human engagement in eﬀorts to restore
and maintain biodiversity through environmental
volunteering. Key among them is connectedness:
to our own inner beings, to others and to the
natural environment; revisiting calls for “reciprocal
maintenance” that have been foundational to
health promotion since the Ottawa Charter (WHO
1986; Parkes and Horwitz 2009).

218 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

%R[3V\FKRVRFLDOKHDOWKDQGƩVKELRGLYHUVLW\LQ)LML
The high biodiversity ecosystems within the Paci c are the settings for health where cultural
identity, subsistence life and social systems exist (sensu Horwitz and Finlayson 2011). In a set of
studies from the small-island developing state of Fiji, enkins et al. (2010) demonstrated the notable
absence from degraded river basins of suites of sh that traditionally formed the staple diets of
inland communities. Notably absent species in heavily modi ed catchments include many migratory
species that form important commercial and cultural sheries for Paci c islanders. These e ects
are largely seasonal and magni ed in degraded catchments, with pronounced negative impacts
on food-provisioning services and biodiversity during heavy rainfall and severe storms ( enkins &
upiter 2011). These e ects will likely become more severe under predicted future climate scenarios.
Community bans on harvesting and clearing within riparian wetlands can be e ective in maintaining
sh diversity, even in areas where forests have previously been extensively cleared ( enkins et
al. 2010). However, these bene ts are rapidly lost once the ban is lifted and sh from rivers again
become scarce ( enkins & upiter 2011). Fresh sh often contributes more than 75% of the sh
consumption of both rural and urban areas of the Paci c, with the remainder comprising canned
sh (Bell et. al 2009). Given the high levels of sh consumption, and the limited opportunities for
agriculture and animal husbandry in small islands, sh usually contributes the majority of animal
protein in the diet at the national level (Bell et al. 2009). For many Fijian inland communities,
freshwater sh not only comprise a major part of the diet but also have important cultural totemic
values. Loss of freshwater sh biodiversity therefore has important implications for physical and
cultural well-being. Some authors note an ecology-driven model of well-being in many Paci c islands
that is based on the vitality and abundance of natural resources relied upon for subsistence and
cultural practices (McGregor et al. 2003). Within this ecological model, the collective family unit
forms the core social unit within which the individual lives and interacts, which is interdependent
upon the lands and associated resources for health (physical, mental and emotional) and social
well-being. This case illustrates the potential for physical and psychosocial health to be e ected
through loss in sh biodiversity. However, like many studies, while biodiversity loss can be clearly
demonstrated, the precise nature of impact on physical health through nutritional or cultural de cit
has not been investigated.

5. Conclusions and ways forward
This chapter has presented an account of evidence
that suggests that biodiversity plays a role in
people’s lives, in their cultural traditions and in
their social interactions, and that health outcomes
are a consequence of these relationships.
Species, habitats, ecosystems, and landscapes
form essential elements of food production
systems, culinary traditions, traditional medicine,
rituals, worldviews, attachments to place and
community, and social systems. The constructs
of cultural ecosystem services, and ecosystems as
settings, can be used to frame the relationships

between biological diversity and cultural diversity,
and human health and well-being. The cultural
services provided by an ecosystem provide a useful
lens through which the interlinkages between
biodiversity and health can be seen.
Over half of the world’s population already lives
in cities and the transition toward urban and periurban areas is steadily increasing, which will be
a major challenge for all countries, with notably
pronounced impacts in developing countries
(UN-Habitat & UNHSP 2010; Cohen 2006;
Cohen et al. 2012; Montgomery 2008). There is
a rising trend for people, especially within poor
communities, to be separated from nature and

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 219

AMIRA_A / FOTER / CC BY

– urban planning to encourage active transport;
– building designs that enhance local
environments and cultural traditions;
– creating settings for restorative health that
draw upon cultural ecosystem services; and
– a deeper understanding of the ways in which
positive and negative exposures to biodiversity are
felt by individuals.
Exploring these associations has been, and needs
to be, an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral
pursuit. In some instances, an empirical and/or
rational inquiry will demand and reveal evidence
to demonstrate a particular relationship, much
like that expected of sound epidemiological or

immunological analyses. In other instances, the
relationship is explored with spiritual, emotional
or intuitive worldviews, informed by the social
sciences. Research from all of these disciplines
will provide for a comprehensive treatment of
the subject.
The diverse and interrelated implications of the
cultural appreciation of biodiversity for wellbeing, including outcomes for physical and mental
health, are embraced by interlinkages that range
from obvious, direct and linear ones, to ones that
are indirect and more complicated, often mediated
by socioeconomic factors and issues of scale, to
ones that are more reciprocal, where biodiversity,
culture and human health are interdependent.
The interlinkages can be obscured or confounded by
the trade-oﬀs of natural capital for other forms of
capital, such as built, infrastructural and ﬁnancial.
While trade-oﬀs are sometimes inevitable and even
necessary, these other forms of capital often give
a shorter-term well-being beneﬁt, even though
ecosystem services may have been degraded and
biodiversity may have been lost. Exploring further
interdisciplinary study of the interlinkages between
biodiversity, physical and mental health, and
cultural ecosystem services provides both a framing
device for the post-2015 sustainable development
goals, and a set of integrated indicators that will
allow targets to be set.

220 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

ISTOCKPHOTO

to be deprived of the physical, physiological and
psychological beneﬁts that ecosystems provide
(Sandifer et al. 2015). This is not insigniﬁcant
in the context of the shifting global burden of
disease, in which NCDs continue to account for an
increasing proportion of the burden. At the same
time, the rise in physical inactivity, combined
with dietary changes that often accompany the
transition from rural to urban and peri-urban
areas, also importantly contribute to the burden
of NCDs. These rising challenges present new
opportunities to produce beneﬁts for biodiversity
conservation and public health, through:

PART III

Cross-Cutting Issues,
Tools & Ways Forward

WORLD BANK PHOTO COLLECTION

13. Climate change, biodiversity
and human health
1. Introduction
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of
our time. It is now widely recognized that climate
change and biodiversity loss¹ are interconnected,
and that both are increasingly influenced by
human activity (IPCC 2014; Pereira et al. 2010;
Campbell et al. 2009; Bellard et al. 2012; Parmesan
et al. 2011; Rockström et al. 2009; Beaumont et al.
2011; CBD 2009, 2003). The recently released Fifth
Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports previous
ﬁndings that climatic change will probably be
perilously aggravated unless robust climate
adaptation and mitigation measures are adopted.²
Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions³ resulting

from anthropogenic activity have risen more
rapidly between 2000 to 2010 than in any other
period in human history (IPCC 2014b),⁴ and the
potential impacts of anthropogenic activity on
biodiversity under business-as-usual scenarios
are but another reminder of the critical need for
action (CBD 2010; 2014). The impacts of climate
change will be ampliﬁed as it interacts with a
range of other drivers; a warming climate not
only threatens the stability and functioning of our
planet’s biological and physical systems but also
poses direct and indirect threats to global public
health, with more pronounced impacts on the
world’s most vulnerable populations (McMichael
et al. 2006, 2012; Parmesan and Martens 2009;
Haines et al. 2006).

¹ The Fifth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD highlighted the risks of climate change, in particular, to coral reefs
(decision V/3) and to forest ecosystems (decision V/4), and drew attention to the serious impacts of biodiversity loss on
these systems and their associated livelihoods. The cross-cutting issue on biodiversity and climate change was included in
the work under the Convention in 2004 through decision VII/15 of the COP. Among other subsequent COP decisions on
climate change, at its tenth meeting the COP in decision X/20 para 17b requested the executive Secretary to explore avenues
for bridging the gaps between work being carried out to address the impacts of climate change on public health and work
to address the impacts of climate change on biodiversity.
² These reports of the working groups and the synthesis report of AR5 are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/.
³ Based on the most recent IPCC estimates, the greatest contributors of greenhouse gases are: CO2 (76%); CH4 (about 16%),
N2O (about 6%) and the combined F-gases contribute about 2% (IPCC 2014a).
⁴ From 2000 to 2010, GHG emissions grew on average 2.2% per year compared to 1.3% per year over the entire period from
1970 to 2000. Moreover, although more recent data are not available for all gases, “initial evidence suggests that growth in
global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion has continued with emissions increasing by about 3% between 2010 and
2011 and by about 1–2% between 2011 and 2012” (IPCC 2014b). By sector, the largest sources of GHG emissions came
from energy production, agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU), and industry (IPCC 2014a).

222 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

The chapters in this volume have drawn attention
to a number of risks posed to human societies
by the degradation of the earth’s ecological and
climatic systems, including threats to water
and food security, air quality, the availability of
natural resources used for medicinal, spiritual or
recreational purposes and livelihoods, population
displacement, conﬂict and disasters, and potential
inﬂuences on patterns of disease. These burdens,
however, are not evenly distributed. The greatest
impacts often fall upon the most vulnerable
populations, including women, children and
poverty-stricken communities who are often
least directly responsible for global environmental
change, yet particularly vulnerable to the risks
posed by multiple environmental stresses
(Türkeş 2014). They are also, most frequently,
the least able to assess and address these risks.
Vulnerable communities face a double challenge:
the combined effects of climate change and
biodiversity loss undermine the partial progress
made to achieve the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), which in turn further weakens
not only ecosystem integrity but also country or
community ability to respond to these risks.

1.1 Impacts of climate change on
human health
Though anthropogenic climate change has been
scientifically recognized since the nineteenth
century, real interest in the topic began in 1957,
during the International Geophysical year, with
the prophetic remark that “human beings are now
carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment
of a kind which could not have happened in the
past nor be reproduced in the future”(Callendar
1958). By the time of the establishment of the
IPCC by the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) in 1988, this was clearly
understood, as the IPCC was called on to assess
“the scientific, technical and socioeconomic
information relevant for the understanding of the
risk of human-induced climate change.”

In the health literature, recognition of links
between public health and climate change is
now over a quarter century old, with pioneering
papers in 1989⁵ published in the world’s two
leading English-language medical journals – the
Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine
(Anonymous 1989; Leaf 1989). In the latter,
Alexander Leaf stated that the “United States,
with more than 19,000 km of coastline, will not
be spared. For example, much of Florida sits
on porous limestone. Miami has such a porous
aquifer that a protective dike against rising sea
levels would have to start more than 45 m (150
ft) beneath the surface to prevent salt water
from welling up behind it. Displaced people and
less arable land would compound the problem
of feeding the world’s increasing population.”
He added: “Probably the most widespread and
devastating consequences of global environmental
changes are likely to result from their eﬀects on
agriculture and food supplies for the world’s
burgeoning population” (Leaf 1989).⁶
Health awareness and expertise on the subject of
climate change and health was too young for the
topic to be explicitly included in the ﬁrst IPCC
report (1990). This was corrected in the second
report, shortly followed by publication of the
ﬁrst edited book on climate change and health
(McMichael et al. 1996; see also McMichael et al.
2003). The World Health Organization (WHO) –
which published the books – continues to play
a leading role in developing the topic. Today,
the issue of climate change and health attracts
widespread interest from the public health sector
and is increasingly prominent in the international
scientiﬁc literature. Increased attention by the
scientiﬁc community has been accompanied by
growing awareness of the issues among broader
public and civil society. Some analysts have
expressed the hope that a general awakening by
the public to the health risks of climate change will
accelerate the nascent “sustainability transition”
needed to ensure the survival of civilization

⁵ That same year, the World Health Organization (WHO) set up a task group on the subject and in 1990 published a report
on the “potential health eﬀects of climate change”. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1990/WHO_PEP_90_10.pdf
⁶ An article published in the Lancet that same year raised the additional possibility of conﬂict associated with climate change
(Anonymous 1989).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 223

(McMichael et al. 2000), even beyond that of
commensurate awareness in other disciplines.
The myriad health eﬀects of climate change can
be categorized into three broad categories (Butler
2014a): direct, indirect and tertiary. While it is

diﬃcult to catalogue all the impacts of climate
change on human health, Box 1 summarizes a
threefold approach that can help us conceive
primary, secondary and tertiary impacts that
aﬀect the biodiversity–health nexus.

Box 1. Direct, indirect and tertiary impacts of climate change on human health
Direct
Direct health impacts are those that are directly, causally attributable to climate change and/or
climate variability, such as cardiovascular risk associated with heat waves, or risk of injury associated
with more intense and frequent storms. The recent ndings of Working Group III of the IPCC have
indicated, with a high degree of con dence, that the impacts of recent climate-related extremes,
including heat waves, droughts, oods, cyclones and wild res, have already led to vulnerability
and exposure of some ecosystems and several human systems to current climate variability. Such
extreme weather events impact vulnerable groups such as the poor and elderly the most, though the
adverse e ects on human health can be ameliorated to a certain extent by social and technological
mediators, such as improved urban design and building standards (e.g. Santamouris 2013; Brown and
Southworth 2004; Birkman et al. 2010).
Despite scienti c argument over whether the witnessed increase in heat waves, res and adverse
crop yields in Eurasia in 2010 were random or had been exacerbated by anthropogenic climate
change, the event still directly contributed to 50 000 excess deaths (Barriopedro et al. 2011). The
subsequent rise in global grain prices further indirectly impacted human health and food security
among vulnerable populations worldwide ( ohnstone and Mazo 2011). As such, the e ects of climate
change on water, food security and extreme climatic events are likely to have profound direct impacts
on global public health (Costello et al. 2009). Heat-wave induced mortality of food source species,
ecological keystone species, and disease vectors and reservoirs are other examples of primary e ects.
Indirect
Indirect health impacts arise as downstream e ects of climate change and variability. These impacts
are broad and variable in their etiology, such as change in infectious disease vector distribution and
air pollution interacting with heat waves.
The changing ecology of disease-bearing vectors was raised by Leaf in 1989, though the health impacts
of climate change on vector-borne diseases has been contested by some ecologists (e.g. La erty
2009) and experts from within the disease community (e.g. Gething et al. 2010; Randolph 2009). The
debate is nally showing signs of abatement for some of the most prevalent vector-borne diseases,
including malaria. Consensus is emerging that, indeed, climate change does magnify such risks (Siraj et
⁷ Several plausible reasons have been put forth to explain their lack of prominence – the most likely being the interdisciplinary
nature of these issues in the context of a scientiﬁc community that is still poorly equipped to equitably hear, consolidate
and incorporate numerous competing interests, including those of social scientists (Castree et al. 2014; Heller and Zavaleta
2009). Thus, recent scientiﬁc culture has been reluctant to venture beyond a fairly narrow band of thinking, eﬀectively
tabooing integrative cross-sectoral analysis and written reﬂection on challenges such as diﬀerences in economic, political,
cultural and other forms of power, population growth, the “right” to unbridled consumption and limits to growth and
corresponding impacts on health, biodiversity and life-sustaining ecosystem services.

224 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

al. 2014), though advances in technology, prevention and treatment can combine to reduce the burden
of diseases like malaria (Feachem et al. 2010). Climate change directly contributes to damage of both
infrastructure and human settlements, resulting in human mortality and morbidity that includes the
mental health and well-being of survivors (IPCC 2014d). In countries at all stages of development, these
impacts are consistent with a lack of preparedness for climatic variability in some sectors; the most
salient manifestations will be among the poorest and most vulnerable populations (IPCC, 2014d).
Tertiary
The third – “tertiary impacts” – category is, by a number of magnitudes, the most important health
risk associated with climate change (Butler 2014b). These include the health impacts of large-scale
famine, forced migration and human con ict, which result from the geophysical and ecological
consequences of climate change, including the alteration of ecosystems, sea-level rise, and longterm disruptions in water supply and food production. Surprisingly, with rare exceptions, this group
of e ects has been little mentioned in the intervening decades, including in the most recent IPCC
reports released in 2014. These must be considered more holistically as we prepare to embark upon
new global commitments on climate change and a post-2015 Development Agenda.

Many authors in this volume point to numerous
synergies (“co-beneﬁts”) that could ﬂow to both
human well-being and ecological “health” from a
more biosensitive approach to our relationship
with nature (Boyden 2004), such as the co-beneﬁts
of cycling on both health and environment.
Awareness of these co-beneﬁts may also accelerate
global social transformation (Haines et al. 2009;
Raskin et al. 2002). On the other hand, many
forms of inertia: social, institutional, technological
and perhaps, above all, climatological, slow and
impede the likelihood of a successful transition,
most notably an enormous countermovement,
funded and fuelled by vested interests proﬁting
from “environmental brinkmanship” (Butler
2000). Delay is also worsened by the scientiﬁc
knowledge gaps of many economists and policymakers, who have been very slow to awaken to the
risks we face, and who are instead wedded to more
conservative or sectoral measures of progress, or
to the hope that technological innovation alone
will eventually solve the problem.

1.2 Vulnerability of biodiversity to
impacts of climate change
The earth’s biota was shaped by fluctuating
Pleistocene concentrations of atmospheric
carbon dioxide, temperature and precipitation;

it has undergone multiple evolutionary changes
and adopted natural adaptive strategies. Until
the advent of industrialization, changes in
climate occurred over an extended period of
time, in a landscape much less degraded and
fragmented than today, and with considerably
less – if any – pressure from anthropogenic
activity. Habitat fragmentation has confined
many species to relatively small areas within
their previous ranges, resulting in reduced genetic
variability (Parmesan and Matthews 2006) and
other changes to structure and composition (CBD
2009). Warming beyond the highest temperatures
reached during the Pleistocene will continue to
stress biodiversity and ecosystems far beyond
the levels imposed by the climatic changes that
occurred in the evolutionary past (Templeton et
al. 1990; Parmesan 2006).
The impacts of climate change on biodiversity
operate at diﬀerent levels (including microbial,
individual, population, species, community,
ecosystem and biome), with variable responses
at each level (Bellard et al. 2012; Parmesan
and Martens 2009). For example, increased
temperatures coupled with decreases in the
distribution of precipitation may reduce
freshwater levels in lakes and rivers (Campbell
et al. 2009). Warmer temperatures cause ﬁsh

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 225

populations to redistribute towards the poles, and
tropical oceans to become relatively less diverse
(CBD 2010). In other systems, drought may cause
some tree species to disappear and in turn also
fundamentally aﬀect both vegetation structure
and species composition (February et al. 2007).
Models of future biome distributions in tropical
South America have found that substantial
shifts in the region may lead to the substitution
of Amazonian forest cover by savannah-like
vegetation (Salazar et al. 2007; Lapola et al.
2009). The interaction between climate change,
deforestation and ﬁre can also lead to widespread
forest dieback, with some parts moving into a
self-perpetuating cycle of more frequent ﬁres and
intense droughts. At the same time, more frequent
and powerful forest ﬁres can compromise both the
productivity of forests and their ability to store
carbon (Barlow and Peres 2008; Bush et al. 2008).
These combined impacts often lead to a reduction
in regional rainfall, compromising agricultural
production, livelihoods and food security (CBD
2010). Other models examining changes in natural
vegetation structure and function in response to
climate change predict that changes in vegetation
cover in the tropics,⁸ particularly in portions of
West and southern Africa and South America,
also include forest dieback (Alo and Wang 2008;
Barlow and Peres 2008). Continued warming
trends in oceans will accompany acidiﬁcation as
a result of increased carbon emissions, resulting
in widespread degradation of tropical coral
reefs⁹ (Doney et al. 2009; Carpenter et al. 2008;
Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007; Orr et al. 2005), and
aﬀecting the genetic and species diversity and
composition of marine species such as molluscs,
with corresponding impacts on our own sources
of food, medicines, recreation and transportation

(Bellard et al. 2012). Pollution is another pressure
interacting with climate change (Seinfeld and
Pandis 2012), and causing disruption to aquatic
(Schiedek et al. 2007), terrestrial (Cramer et al.
2001) and marine ecosystems (Harvey et al. 2006).
It is diﬃcult to analytically separate the inﬂuence
of each of these drivers, as anthropogenic climate
change and its eﬀects are intimately dependent on
interactions with other pressures such as land-use
change and attendant habitat loss, and changes in
water use, which themselves feed back into the
hydroclimatic cycle (Elmhagen et al. 2015). These
interactions in turn inﬂuence the ability of natural
systems to respond at various spatial and temporal
scales (Campbell et al. 2009). Further research on
the complex interactions between these variables is
critical, and we must also consider the underlying
socioeconomic and other drivers of land-use change
at multiple scales (Elmhagen et al. 2015; Lambin
et al. 2001; Myers et al. 2013), and integrate input
from a larger number of disciplines.¹⁰
An abundant number of predictive scenarios
have shown no signs of abatement without the
implementation of additional measures, including
robust climate mitigation and adaptation
strategies (e.g. IPCC 2014; CBD 2014). Alarmingly,
some recent studies suggest that the impact of
climate change on biodiversity has been estimated
to have surpassed that attributed to land-use
change and habitat loss (Selwood et al. 2014). As
scientiﬁc research on individual drivers continues
to proliferate, the impact of simultaneous multiple
drivers, such as climatic changes driven by human
water use for both food and energy production,
remains a critical area for further research (Bellard
et al. 2012; Destouni et al. 2013; Elmhagen et al.
2015).

⁸ It should be noted that simulated biosphere responses are model-dependent.
⁹ Tropical coral reefs and amphibians have already been among the most negatively aﬀected global biota, and range-restricted
species, most notably polar and mountaintop species, have already led to species extinctions (Parmesan 2006). Current
rates and magnitude of species extinctions (terrestrial, freshwater and marine) far exceed normal background rates, with
increases of up to 1000 times that of historical background rates (MA 2005).
¹⁰ For example, Lambin et al. (2001) suggest that land-use change is driven by both proximate causes (which are local and
direct, and explain how and why anthropogenic activity acts on land cover and on ecosystem processes at a local scale), and
underlying causes (indirect or root causes based on regional and sometimes global policies, economic forces and technological
advancement that interact with and mediate the relationship at the local scale). The complex interactions between proximate
and underlying causes interact over time (in a limited number of ways) to drive land management decisions and practices.

226 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

2. Climate change challenges at
the intersection of biodiversity
and human health
Climate change and variability have irreversible
impacts on the global environment by altering
hydrological systems and freshwater supplies,
advancing land degradation and loss of
biodiversity, and debilitating food production
systems and ecosystem services, thus aﬀecting
health outcomes (WHO 2005). These factors are
closely interrelated, as deforestation, industrial
agriculture and centralized livestock production
systems further accelerate climate change and
biodiversity loss, thus contributing potential risks
to food security, nutrition, and other aspects of
health, livelihoods and well-being.
The IPCC has identiﬁed key risks across sectors
and regions including, among others: (i) risk of loss
of biodiversity of marine and coastal ecosystems,
the goods and services they provide for coastal
livelihoods, especially for ﬁshing communities
in the tropics and the Arctic, challenging
sustained ﬁsheries and aquaculture; (ii) risk of
loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems,
biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions
and services they provide for livelihoods; and (iii)
risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food
systems linked to warming, drought, ﬂooding,
and precipitation variability and extremes,
particularly for poorer populations (Field et al.
2014). In addition, rising CO2 levels over the next
century is likely to aﬀect food nutritional quality,
including the decrease of protein concentration
and other nutrients of many human plant foods
(Taub 2008; Fernando 2012; Myers 2014). Ocean
acidiﬁcation due to increased CO2 concentration
poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems,
especially polar ecosystems and the biodiversity
of coral reefs, thus challenging invertebrate
ﬁsheries and aquaculture (Portner et al 2014).
Reductions in marine biodiversity due to climate
change and ocean acidiﬁcation might reduce the
discovery of marine genetic resources useful in the
pharmaceutical, aquaculture and other industries
(Arrieta et al. 2010).

Climate-driven shifts in species distribution,
abundance, seasonal cycles, desynchronized timing
of life history events and ecosystem disruptions
caused by extreme weather events have profound
potential to disrupt and erode ecosystem services,
release pathogens from previous constraints, and
leave human populations ill-equipped to deal with
compounding health challenges. However, studies
of human health as a complex social–ecological
system, replete with climate vulnerability,
are relatively recent (McMichael and Wilcox
2009). Figure 1 shows the complexity of the
nexus between climate, biodiversity and social
interactions. Resilient or vulnerable communities
may cope better, or worse, with both climate and
biodiversity changes. Although building resilient
communities is essential, in particular, given
existing pressures on climate and ecosystems, the
most eﬃcient response is to jointly halt carbon
emissions and ecosystem destruction.
Attributing causality is complex (Parmesan et al.
2011; Parmesan and Yohe 2003) and presents a
challenge to meta-analyses and the translation
of scientiﬁc research into simple strategies for
health or conservation agencies. Despite this
challenge, observation and predictive studies
of the direct, indirect and cumulative eﬀects of
climate change on human health acting through
multiple levels of biodiversity are increasing. This
body of information is guiding surveillance and
further targeted research.
The breadth of interest in addressing climate
change within the context of interlinked human,
animal and ecosystem health at a global scale
is discussed in the subsections below. We can
identify several complex relationships with the
primary, secondary and tertiary eﬀects introduced
in Box 1.

2.1 Climate change, food security and
nutrition
The combined risks noted in the preceding section
and in the chapters on agricultural biodiversity and
nutrition constitute a challenge for food security
and nutrition. This is particularly the case for the
least developed countries and most vulnerable

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 227

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ Interactions between climate, biodiversity and social factors. Health is at the centre, in the
intersection of these three drivers. The arrows are not causal but an expression of the dynamics inherent
in the drivers. Social factors may be protective or harmful to health and well-being; climate drivers impact
on biodiversity, on the social factors and directly or indirectly on health. Changes in biodiversity and
ecosystems interact synergistically with climate change and are inƦuenced by social factors. These feedback
loops may magnify biological change and they sometimes exacerbate negative human health outcomes,
directly or indirectly.

Climate c
han
ge

Climate drivers:
Temperature
PrecipitaƟon
Extreme climate

FuncƟoning
or impaired
ecosystem
services

Water
Food
Air

Health

Health &
nutriƟonal
status
MigraƟon

Direct,
Indirect,
TerƟary
impacts

ersity
l div
ica
og
ol

Bi

Community
Engagement,
TradiƟonal
knowledge

Resilient or
vulnerable
communiƟes

S o cial

communities, such as indigenous populations,
subsistence farmers and gatherers, pastoralists,
coastal populations and artisanal ﬁsherfolk (FAO
2008; Tirado et al. 2010). According to the IPCC,
the risks of global aggregate impacts are moderate
for additional warming between 1°C and 2°C,
reﬂecting impacts to both the earth’s biodiversity
and the overall global economy. However,
extensive biodiversity loss with associated loss
of ecosystem goods and services results in high
risks at around 3°C additional warming (Field et
al. 2014).
Major climate impacts on water availability and
food security aﬀect disproportionately the welfare
of the poor, including indigenous populations,
women and girls, female-headed households
and those with limited access to land, modern

factors

agricultural inputs, infrastructure and education
(Field 2014). Indigenous peoples rely on their
natural resources for the provision of traditional
foods, fuel and medicines, and will be particularly
aﬀected by the impacts of climate on ecosystems,
biodiversity and the environment (FAO 2008;
Tirado et al. 2010). Traditional food systems are
further threatened because of increasing loss of
indigenous peoples’ traditional territories due to
climate change mitigation measures such as carbon
sinks and renewable energy projects (FAO 2008).
The demand for biofuel is likely to remain high,
and this may result in the clearing of biodiverse
land, such as tropical forests and wetlands, for the
purpose of biofuel cultivation (Tirado et. al 2010).
In this context, it is essential to look for the
co-benefits of nutrition-sensitive climate

228 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

adaptation and mitigation strategies (Tirado et
al. 2013). Across varying global landscapes, the
ability for family farms, integrated agroforestry
and farming systems to conserve, restore or
augment biodiversity (e.g. species, genetic
and ecosystem diversity) offer opportunities
to enhance dietary diversity and nutrition,
and promote climate resilience, especially as
considered within broader social, economic and
environmental policy frameworks. Adaptation
measures targeting biodiversity (and ecosystem
diversity) can simultaneously provide nutrientrich food, and beneﬁt the environment through
supporting services such as pollination, nutrient
cycling, temperature and water regulation, soil
formation and pest control (CBD 2010).

2.2 Climate change and water security
As the chapter on freshwater and agricultural
biodiversity in this volume describes, the
provision of clean water for drinking, sanitation
and agricultural uses is both an essential service
regulated by ecosystems and an important health
determinant (WHO 2012). While the long-term
impacts of climate change on water resources
are diﬃcult to quantify, it is well established that
human communities are reliant on groundwater
for drinking, sanitation and other uses essential to
human survival; yet rising sea levels cause saline
water intrusion into essential groundwater aquifers
near coastal regions, decreasing the availability of
water resources for human purposes (Vörösmarty
et al. 2000). Climate change contributes to more
intermittent and intense precipitation patterns,
increases the risks of ﬂoods, droughts and other
hazards, causes the melting of glaciers and
increases evapotranspiration rates, amplifies
existing global public health challenges, and
further destabilizes the balance of environmental
and social systems (WHO 2012).
Variations in the hydrological cycle resulting
from climate change must be closely monitored
(Vörösmarty et al. 2000), together with the
physical, biological and chemical processes that
drive them at multiple levels, with consideration
for the socioeconomic and political contexts of
our human-dominated earth system (Bogardi et

al. 2012). In this context, eﬀective responses will
necessitate innovative cross-sectoral initiatives
and integrative climate adaptation and mitigation
strategies, such as ecosystem based-adaptation
(e.g. see Box 3).

2.3 Climate change impacts on
traditional medicines, pharmacology
and toxicology
Diversity in the production of secondary chemical
products remains an important source of existing
and new metabolites of pharmacological interest
in medicinal plants, and this may be aﬀected by
climate change (Ziska et al 2009). Few studies
have examined how pharmacological compounds
might respond to recent or projected changes in
CO2 and/or temperature. For example, increases
in growth temperature and CO2 affect the
production and concentration of atropine and
scopolamine in jimson weed (Datura stromonium)
(Ziska et al. 2005), and recent and projected
CO2 concentrations increase the production of
morphine in wild poppy (Papaver setigerum) (Ziska
et al. 2008).
More than 700 plant species are poisonous to
humans. Rising temperatures and longer growing
seasons would in principle increase the presence
of such species in the environment, but the
interaction between CO2 and on the concentration
or production of such poisons and plant toxicology
is largely unknown (Ziska 2015) and needs to be
explored. More than 100 diﬀerent plant species
are associated with contact dermatitis, which
occurs by contact with plant chemical irritants
present in leaves, ﬂowers, savia roots, etc. One
well-known chemical is urushiol that induces
contact dermatitis in the poison ivy group
(Toxicodendron/Rhus spp.). Poison ivy growth and
urushiol congeners are highly sensitive to rising
CO2 levels (Mohan et al. 2006). These results
suggest possible links among rising CO2, plant
biology and increased contact dermatitis. This area
deserves further research.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 229

2.4 Climate change and infectious
disease emergence and re-emergence
The complex interactions between ecological
factors and climate change increasingly predict
changes in the global epidemiology of many
vector-borne and waterborne diseases (WHO
2012). This is of growing interest and concern
for scientists from a variety of ﬁelds, including
ecology, microbiology, epidemiology and related
medical ﬁelds (Lipp et al. 2002). Additionally,
interest is garnered from experts in the social
sciences, aware of the close relationship between
the geophysical environment and the economic
and social systems it sustains. Such interest
emerges from concerns over human and animal
health problems vulnerable to the interaction
between climate change and other factors, such
as increasing antibiotic resistance (Patz et al.
2005; Epstein 2001), emerging infectious diseases
(Jones et al. 2008; Wilson 1991), and potential
vulnerabilities of medicinal and aromatic plant
(MAP) species.¹¹ These, in turn, have subsequent
influence on the cultural and socioeconomic
determinants of health (Cavaliere 2009; Padulosi
et al. 2011).
There is mounting evidence that climate change
will alter the patterns of animal (Altizer et al. 2013;
Harvell et al. 2002), plant (Pautasso et al. 2012)
and human (Patz et al. 2005; Purse et al. 2005)
diseases. Additional evidence suggests that rising
temperatures and changing humidity and rainfall
patterns have already altered the distribution of
some waterborne illnesses and disease vectors
(IPCC 2014d), notably affecting populations
with little or no acquired resistance and, as such,
causing health systems to be destabilized (WHO
2012). For example, as the chapter on water
quality indicates, cholera (causative agents Vibrio
cholerae O1 and Vibrio cholerae 0139) remains

a major public health problem, with ongoing
outbreaks occurring in low-income countries with
poor access to sanitation infrastructure¹² (Ali et
al. 2012). Rising ocean temperatures aﬀect the
ecology of the aquatic environment, for example,
by increasing algal blooms, with corresponding
implications for the epidemiology of diseases
such as cholera. The population dynamics of this
pathogenic microorganism in the environment is
strongly inﬂuenced by environmental factors such
as salinity, seasonal patterns and the presence of
copepods,¹³ which in turn are modulated by largerscale changes in climate (Lipp et al. 2002; Vineis et
al. 2011). Prolonged ﬂoods and droughts may also
contribute to water contamination and potentially
exacerbate the risks of cholera and other forms of
diarrhoeal disease (WHO 2012).
In natural systems, changing climatic variables can
fundamentally inﬂuence successional processes
and community dynamics. For example, a 12-year
warming experiment in Colorado, USA, to evaluate
the damage of pathogens and herbivores on six
of the most common plant species (i.e. Artemisia
tridentata, Helianthella quinquenervis, Erigeron
speciosus, Potentilla gracilis, Potentilla hippiana and
Lathyrus leucanthus) found that plants exposed to
warmer temperatures suﬀered the most damage
and were attacked by a larger number of species.
The study concluded that climatic changes
are likely to result in changes to community
composition (Roy et al. 2004). Although there are
few long-term datasets (for examples, see Jeger
and Pautasso 2008; Fabre et al. 2011), a large
number of other scientiﬁc analyses and modelling
projects have been carried out to examine the
impacts of climate change on plant pathogens
and many have reached similar conclusions (see
Pautasso et al. 2012 and references therein).

¹¹ Whether climate change poses a more prominent threat to MAP species than other threats such as unsustainable use is
not established. However, the potential eﬀects on MAPs may be particularly signiﬁcant due to their cultural and medical
value within traditional medicine systems (Cavaliere 2009). Moreover, given that many wild species, including MAPs, grow
in mountainous regions, it is likely that at least some will be at risk (Padulosi et al. 2014).
¹² According to recent WHO estimates, only 5–10% of the actual number of cholera cases occurring worldwide are reported,
and of the estimated 3–5 million cases that occur globally every year, about 100 000 to 120 000 people die (Ali et al. 2012).
¹³ The causative agents of cholera include brackish waters (Tamplin et al. 1990) and crustacean copepods (Huq et al. 1983),
and climate change contributes to an increase in both.

230 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Box 2 discusses the impact of heat waves and other
extreme weather events on fruit bats and bat-borne
diseases. Loss of host predators and competitors,
changes in parasite and pathogen survival and
reproduction are additional mechanisms by which
climate change impacts infectious disease. For
malaria, disease transmission-enhancing changes
have been described in the population dynamics
of both the mosquito vector, and the pathogen

within it, including altitudinal and latitudinal
range shifts in Africa and South America (Siraj
et al. 2014). While for many human diseases the
potential eﬀects of climate change are obscured
by socioeconomic factors and control eﬀorts,
strong evidence of climate eﬀects on infectious
disease comes from invertebrate, animal and plant
diseases (Altizer et al. 2013).

Box 2. Bat-borne diseases, climate, heat waves and extreme weather events:
mounting evidence of important relationships
Bats, and fruit bats in particular, became the focus of increased human health interest after
novel diseases, including Nipah virus disease and SARS, emerged in the 1990s–2000s. Land-use
change and bush meat hunting are the suspected primary reasons for shifts in host and pathogen
relationships (Luis et al. 2013) but the impact of climate is likely to be an additional factor in their
emergence and continued transmission, as these species are capable of ying long distances to
optimize resources and nd alternative roosts. Widespread bush res in Sumatra were suspected of
in uencing fruit bat–pathogen dynamics prior to the emergence of Nipah virus in Malaysia in 1998
(Chua 2003). While epidemic enhancement and agricultural intensi cation are co-factors (Pulliam et
al. 2012), it remains possible that the res and other climatic stress factors on food resources have
in uenced viral loads and spillover (Daszak et al. 2013).
More speculatively, climate change, together with deforestation and other land-use changes, has
been hypothesized as a contributing factor in the recent outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa (see
also the chapter on infectious diseases in this volume). It is di cult to isolate climate as a driver in
the context of extensive deforestation and profound economic and public health failures, further
undermined by years of civil con ict (Bausch and Schwarz 2014). However, prolonged depression
of primary forest production during lengthy droughts in central Africa followed by sudden rainfall
events appears to enhance the opportunity for Ebola transmission between bats and other wildlife
that concentrate on available resources (Tucker et al. 2002).
During the Australian summer of 2014, an estimated 100 000 fruit bats fell dead in the streets
of Brisbane and south-eastern Queensland towns. (The number that died outside urban areas is
unknown.) The bats are highly temperature sensitive (Welbergen et al. 2008) and it is unlikely they
could survive a heat wave with temperatures above 43°C. Removing corpses was a major exercise
for the urban authorities, and gloves and collection bins were supplied to residents. At least 16
people were treated for possible Australian bat lyssavirus (related to rabies and fatal without
immunoglobulins) after they were scratched or bitten by dying bats. It is yet to be understood
what e ect the deaths will have on the bat colonies themselves. The 2011 spike and dispersed
distribution of another zoonotic (transmissible to humans) Australian bat-borne disease, Hendra
virus, is believed to be a consequence of the dispersal of bats after widespread ooding in southeast Queensland following Cyclone asi in 2010. The higher latitude range extension of two host
species of this disease, and increased urbanization of all four, in preceding decades are suspected
factors in disease emergence (Plowright et al. 2011).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 231

2.5 Climate change and disaster risk
reduction
Based on recent data from the United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR), well over 80% of disasters are related
to climate, contribute enormously to economic
losses and, as the chapter on disaster risk
reduction in this volume also indicates, trigger
short- and long-term population displacement.¹⁴
The impact of climate change on the frequency
and intensity of extreme weather events, such as
extreme precipitation, coastal ﬂooding and heat
waves, is already exacerbating risks to unique and
threatened ecosystems, costing human lives and
decreasing the viability of human settlements. In
the last decade of the twentieth century, extreme
weather events accounted for the death of some
600 000 people and caused damages worth billions
of dollars (Hales et al. 2003). Based on the most
recent ﬁndings of Working Group II of the IPCC,
the risks posed by some extreme events, such as
heat waves, are likely to be enhanced with only 1°C
of additional warming. A large number of species
and systems with limited adaptive capacities,
including Artic sea ice and coral reef systems, are
considerably threatened by a warming climate
and, from a human perspective, many cultures
are already at risk. The distribution of impacts
from extreme weather events is uneven, with
disadvantaged and vulnerable populations in
countries at all levels of development being at
greatest risk (IPCC 2014d).
Rising sea levels caused by the warming of the
ocean, glacial melt and wetlands alteration (e.g.
Syvitski et al. 2009) can cause increased ﬂooding
and the erosion and inundation of coastal
ecosystems, further endangering wetlands
and posing concomitant threats to coastal
communities, including those of small island
developing states (SIDS).¹⁵ Without a signiﬁcant
scaling up of climate adaptation eﬀorts, it has
been projected that the rise in sea levels could

increase the number of people exposed to coastal
ﬂooding more than tenfold by 2080 (a rise of
more than 100 million people a year) (CBD 2010).
Rising seas could also impact on human health
and well-being through an increase in salination
of coastal freshwater aquifers, and by disrupting
storm water drainage and sewage disposal (Patz
2001). In turn, repeated ﬂooding or increased
salination can lead to population displacement,
thereby further heightening the vulnerability
of populations (Costello et al. 2009). As several
case studies in the chapter on disaster risk have
shown, refugees suﬀer substantial health burdens,
overcrowding, lack of shelter and competition for
resources, which is also often associated with
conﬂict (WHO 2012).
The United Nations (UN) World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction recently adopted the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030, recognizing the intimate links
between disaster risk, climate change and
poverty. The conﬂuence of these conditions lead
to a convergence of less resilient built, natural and
human environments, making populations more
vulnerable to displacement, disease and the loss
of livelihoods. To meet the resulting ambitious
global targets, as well as those that may emerge
from other global frameworks in 2015 – including
under the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) process on climate change and
in the UN post-2015 Development Agenda – each
of the sectors must meaningfully engage, together
with political authorities, local communities, civil
society, and the public at large to understand and
address the combined risks of poverty, land-use
change, ecosystem degradation, climate change
and poor urban planning.

¹⁴ See http://www.unisdr.org/archive/42862 from 6 March 2015.
¹⁵ The recently concluded “SAMOA Pathway” that emerged from the third UN Conference on Small Island Developing States
held in September 2014 highlights the importance of a range of issues at the nexus of biodiversity, health and development,
including climate change, in the context of particular threats faced by SIDS. See for example: http://www.sids2014.org/
index.php?menu=1537.

232 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

ã.5.1 %ountain e;osQsteEs and ;liEate
;hange at the interse;tion of Oater and
food se;uritQ disease eEergen;e and
extreEe Oeather eNents
Mountain ecosystems are critically important
centres of biodiversity. They play a unique role in
the supply of services essential to human survival,
especially critical to mountain dwellers and
lowland communities. Occupying approximately
one ﬁfth of the land’s surface, mountains play a
critical role in the water cycle both by capturing
moisture from air masses and as water sources¹⁶
stored as snow, ice and permafrost, which provide
fresh water to sustain communities, agriculture,
energy production (primarily hydroelectric

power), downstream industries and livelihoods
(Price 1998). The large majority of the planet’s
major rivers and tributaries depend on water
that begins the terrestrial phase of its cycle in
mountain regions (Bajracharya and Shrestha
2011; Bandyopadhyay et al. 1997; MA 2005; CBD
2012). In arid and semi-arid regions, over 90% of
river ﬂow is derived from mountains (Price, 1998).
Mountain ecosystems are particularly vulnerable
to the impacts of climate change, with
corresponding impacts on the populations reliant
upon the critical resources and services they
provide, including water, energy, timber and food
(see Box 3).

Box 3. Climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation in the Hindu Kush HimalayasƸƾ
The Hindu Kush Himalayas (HKH), otherwise referred to as the greater Himalayan region, extend
from eastern Nepal and Bhutan to northern Afghanistan, and have among the most extensive areas
covered by glaciers and permafrost on the planet. They contain water resources that drain through
ten of the largest rivers in Asia,

from which over 1.3 million people derive their livelihoods and

upon which many more depend for water and other resources (Eriksson et al. 2009). The region has
been recognized as a uniquely biodiversity-rich area with equally unique topographic characteristics
and socioeconomic and environmental challenges. The accelerated rate of warming,

glacier ice

melt and related implications on the hydrological systems of central, south and east Asia are among
the most widely cited (Armstrong 2010; Eriksson et al. 2009). The retreating of glaciers (in this region
and elsewhere) is a sentinel indicator of climate change but also one of the most di cult to quantify,
given the physical and spatial complexity of glaciers and data collection.
Ongoing challenges in regions in which large proportions of the population live in mountain
communities, such as Bhutan and Nepal, include poverty, poor medical support, less access to
education and shorter life expectancies. While climate change may bring some bene ts to mountain

¹⁶ In the greater Himalaya region, it is estimated that snow and glacial melting contribute approximately 50% of annual river
ﬂows (Eriksson et al. 2009).
¹⁷ Here, the term Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) sometimes referred to as greater Himalayan region, includes the Himalayan,
Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Pamir and Tien Shan mountain ranges, where there is currently glacier coverage. The HKH,
however, does not constitute one single region, as the eastern Himalayas are separated from the Karakoram–Hindu Kush
mountains by approximately 2000 km, though there is no sharp separation between east and west. Diﬀerences in climate
and in glacier behaviour and dynamics have been reported across the area, with variations in these conditions throughout
(Armstrong 2010).
¹⁸ These are the Amu Darya, Brahmaputra, Ganges, Indus, Irrawaddy, Mekong, Salween, Tarim, Yangtze and Yellow Rivers.
¹⁹ It has been estimated that global warming in the region has been 0.6 ºC per decade versus 0.74 ºC per hundred years as a
global average (Eriksson et al. 2009).
²⁰ Several glaciers in the extended HKH region are retreating but the extent of the impact of climate change on glacier ice is not
well known as glacier data in the Himalayas and surrounding mountains are very sparse and conditions vary signiﬁcantly
along the south–east to north–west transect of the Himalayan–Karakoram–Hindu Kush mountain ranges (Armstrong 2010).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 233

regions (e.g. longer growing seasons), mountain dwellers and lowland communities also face a
broad and unique range of climate-related health risks. These include water and food shortages,
increased risk of natural disasters and the expansion of water-related and vector-borne diseases
(Ebi et al. 2007; Ahmed and Suphachalasai 2014).

Increased variability in precipitation patterns

(including variability in monsoon and more frequent extreme rainfall), coupled with increased risk
of extreme weather events and glacial ice melt are predicted to increase the risk of oods (carrying
rock, sediments and debris), landslides, threats to forest ecoregions including increased forest res
in some areas, soil erosion, and habitat and ecosystem disruption,

damage to infrastructure and

property, injury and loss of human life (Ahmed and Suphachalasai 2014; Armstrong 2010; Ebi et
al. 2007). Of particular concern in the region are the potentially devastating impacts on mountain
dwellers and lowland communities from glacial lake outburst oods, which have become more
frequent since the latter half of the twentieth century (WHO 2005; Armstrong 2010).
Addressing the threats posed or compounded by climate change demands the development of
integrated and holistic approaches for the management of mountain ecosystems that sustain the
ow of life-supporting services. This can be achieved with innovative adaptation solutions (including
ecosystem-based adaptation), such as sustaining highland wetland systems that provide water
regulation, other services and habitats for critical animal and plant species (including medicinal
plants), or new technologies such as drip irrigation systems (CBD 2012; Chettri 2011).
Ecosystem-based adaptation in fragile mountain ecosystems such as HKH can not only provide
co-bene ts at the global or national level but may also be integrated into regional policies to
jointly encourage climate change adaptation, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, and
development at a landscape level (Sharma et al. 2010). In the HKH, holistic ecosystem-based
adaptation strategies that emphasize adaptation as an interdisciplinary issue have been advocated.
These interventions seek to achieve the sustainable management of the transboundary reserve
system through the application of landscape-based solutions to jointly reduce the vulnerabilities
of biodiversity and local communities to climate change and other drivers by restoring endemic
vegetation, developing connectivity between ecosystems, and monitoring large-scale changes to
increase the social and economic resilience of local populations (Chattra et al. 2009).

2.6 Climate change and urbanization
The global urban transition provides challenges
and opportunities for health at the intersection
of climate change and biodiversity. Currently,
urban populations are growing by more than
1 million people every week and, by 2030, it is
estimated that 2 in every 3 people will live in
urban areas – a total of more than 6 billion urban

dwellers worldwide. Most future population
growth will be in small- and medium-sized
cities in low- and middle-income countries.
Urban health inequalities are well documented
(WHO and UN-HABITAT 2010), and rapid,
unplanned urbanization threatens biodiversity
and exacerbates public health challenges across
diﬀerent levels of economic development. Climate
change especially ampliﬁes health risks among

²¹ For example, the reduced availability and quality of freshwater or changes in monsoon patterns can at once aﬀect agricultural
production by decreasing crop yield, increasing water and food insecurity (particularly for those living at altitudes of 2500
m or higher) and lead to a rise in the prevalence of waterborne diseases such as diarrhoeal disease (Ebi et al. 2007). The
impacts on agriculture and food production can also be especially severe. For example, in Nepal, an estimated 64% of all
cultivated area is dependent on monsoon rainfall (Chaudhary and Aryal 2009).
²² Some species may even become extinct as a result of gradual habitat loss resulting from global warming, particularly in
mountain biota above the tree line, and in high latitude and high altitude biomes (Chaudhary and Aryal 2014; Chapin 2004).

234 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

poor and vulnerable communities, including
through inundation in low-lying cities and the
health risks from inadequate water supply,
sanitation and housing. However, aﬄuent urban
areas also face new challenges. In addition to other
negative health impacts described throughout
this volume, recent ﬁndings suggest that climate
change may contribute to an increased incidence
in allergies, particularly in urban areas.
Climate change may alter the diversity,
production, allergenicity, distribution and timing
of airborne allergens. These changes contribute
to the severity and prevalence of allergic disease
in humans. Increased CO2 and temperature
is altering seasonality and beginning to aﬀect
the quantitative and/or qualitative aspects of
the three distinct plant-based contributions to
allergenic pollen: trees in the spring, grasses and
weeds in the summer, and ragweed (Ambrosia
spp.) in the fall (autumn) (Ziska et al. 2015). For
example, a recent study on changes in climate
in the United States has found that rising
temperatures, altered precipitation patterns,
and increasing atmospheric CO2 are expected to
contribute to increasing levels of some airborne
allergens, and associated increases in asthma
episodes and other allergic illnesses, compared
to a future without climate change (Neal et al.
2015). Several prior studies using urban areas as
proxies for both higher temperatures and CO2 also
showed earlier ﬂowering of pollen species, which
may lead to a longer total pollen season (Neil
and Wu 2006; George et al. 2007). Microclimatic
eﬀects of urbanization have been associated with
longer pollen seasons and earlier ﬂoral initiation
in European cities (Rodriguez-Rajo et al. 2010).
As climate change, biodiversity loss and other
pressures combine to pose new challenges, they
also present new opportunities for positive
development to protecting biodiversity, health
and well-being, including in urban areas and at

subnational levels (Puppim de Oliveira et al.
2010). Further multidisciplinary study of these
various intersections and greater collaboration
across various scales of governance, including
local governance and communities, are a necessary
prerequisite to meeting these challenges (Reid
2015). As the next section discusses, ecosystembased conservation and adaptation provide
important opportunities for communities to play
a central role in the development of strategies to
address climate change.

3. Ways forward
3.1 Ecosystem-based adaptation and
ecosystem-based mitigation
Biodiversity conservation can support eﬀorts
to reduce the negative eﬀects of climate change
through ecosystem-based approaches to mitigation
and adaptation.²³ Conserved or restored habitats
can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, thus helping
to address climate change by storing carbon (for
example, reducing emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation). Mangroves are natural
sources of biodiverse food, ﬁsh, shells, fruits,
fuel, medicines, and they act as natural bioshields
that protect coastal lands and local communities
from the impacts of climate-related extreme
weather events, and also contribute to carbon
sequestration. Adaptation strategies to conserve
intact mangrove ecosystems or to repopulate them
can thereby help attenuate potentially severe
impacts of climate change, including ﬂooding
and storm surges, while contributing to climate
mitigation eﬀorts and saving human lives (Das
and Vincent 2009).
Many successful examples of ecosystem-based
approaches are beginning to emerge.²⁴ Ecosystembased adaptation (EBA) activities can include:
establishing diverse agroforestry systems to

²³ Ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA) integrates the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services into an overall climate change
adaptation strategy, while ecosystem-based mitigation (EBM) involves using ecosystems for their carbon storage and
sequestration abilities, by creating, restoring and sustainably managing ecosystems as a climate mitigation strategy.
²⁴ For example, the forest rehabilitation project in Krkonoše and Sumaya National Parks in the Czech Republic is one of several
examples of the implementation of ecosystem-based adaptation strategies and the challenges they have encountered (see
Naumann et al. 2011; Dowald and Osti 2011).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 235

cope with increased risk from climate change;²⁵
sustainable management of upland wetlands
and ﬂoodplains for maintenance of water ﬂow
and quality; conserving agrobiodiversity to
provide speciﬁc gene pools for crop and livestock
adaptation to climate change; maintaining or
restoring mangroves or other coastal wetlands
to reduce coastal flooding and erosion; and
conservation and restoration of forests to
stabilize land slopes and regulate water ﬂows
(Munang et al. 2013). EBA and ecosystem-based
mitigation (EBM) strategies and approaches can
additionally be highly cost–eﬀective options that
provide a range of social, economic and cultural
co-beneﬁts while proactively responding to the
adverse impacts of climate change, safeguarding
biodiversity and contributing to the livelihoods of
local communities (CBD 2009; Doswald and Osti
2011; Goulden et al. 2009).
In Central and South America, there are
several examples of EBM strategies that
support the establishment of protected areas,
conservation agreements and community
resource management. Resilient crop varieties,
climate forecasts and integrated management
of water resources are also being adopted in the
agricultural, aquaculture and silviculture sectors
(IPCC 2014d). Aqua–silviculture systems, which
integrate mangrove forestry with ﬁsh and crab
aquaculture ponds, are commonly used in SouthEast Asia. These systems are more resilient to
shocks and extreme events, and they also lead to
increased production due to improved ecosystem
services. While climate change adaptation is
becoming embedded in some planning processes,
the implementation of responses remains variable
and requires strengthening (IPCC 2014d). EBM
and EBA strategies that include communities as
a central component of planning, address the
governance and policy context within which they
are developed, and build on interdisciplinary
scientiﬁc inquiry, provide valuable opportunities
to address these challenges, and to scale up

these strategies through mainstreaming and
diversiﬁcation across sectors (Reid 2015).

4. Conclusion
A range of local (e.g. invasive species) and global (e.g.
long-range pollution) stressors can make natural
adaptation more diﬃcult in the face of accelerating
climate change. In the absence of robust climate
mitigation and adaptation strategies, the rate and
extent of anthropogenic activity contributing to
climatic changes will continue to aﬀect biodiversity,
constrain the capacity of ecosystems to deliver
essential services, and aﬀect human health both
directly and in combination with other drivers and
pressures. These include land-use change, pollution,
population growth, urbanization and globalization
(Campbell et al. 2009; Parmesan and Martens
2009). These demand the adoption of a broad range
of multilevel sustainable-use and conservation
practices (e.g. strengthening protected area
networks; ensuring adaptive management through
monitoring and evaluation). The full involvement
of communities and policy-makers alike is a key
determinant of their success (Martínez et al.
2012). Additionally, climate change adaptation
and mitigation strategies cannot be dissociated
from health equity considerations, without which
equity gaps are likely to increase with a resounding
impact on the social determinants of health for the
poorest, most vulnerable communities (Costello
et al. 2009).
There is a reservoir of important indigenous
traditional knowledge, which is an invaluable
resource for climate change adaptation and
biodiversity conservation in indigenous
populations, and increases the effectiveness
of adaptation planning strategies (Field et al.
2014; Bennett et al. 2014). Indicators of climate
adaptation and resilience should also include
nutrition outcomes such as the Dietary Diversity
at the Household level (HDDS), including
Women’s Dietary Diversity Score (WDDS) or the
new indicator Minimum Dietary Diversity for

²⁵ Forests provide a carbon reservoir as they contain about 60% of all carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems (CIFOR 2007),
and they can serve as important buﬀers for climate adaptation strategies. As deforestation contributes a large proportion
of global carbon emissions, curbing deforestation and investing in reforestation activities are a critical adaptation strategy
(Chaudhary and Aryal 2009).

236 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Women (MDD-W), which has been suggested
for consideration as one of the priority nutrition
indicators for the post-2015 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).
Conserving natural terrestrial, freshwater and
marine ecosystems and restoring degraded
ecosystems (including their genetic and species
diversity) are also essential for the overall goals
of both the CBD and the UNFCCC. The key role of
ecosystems in the global carbon cycle, for climate
change adaptation, for the provision of a wide
range of ecosystem services essential to human
health and well-being, and for the broader goals of
sustainable development, including the MDGs and
SDGs that will follow (Haines et al. 2012), make
an ecosystem approach indispensible. Since 2008,
WHO has also adopted a very active programme
to guard human health from the impacts of
climate change²⁶ and it recently hosted its ﬁrst
international conference on related health issues.²⁷
While somewhat buﬀered against environmental
changes by culture and technology, human health
is fundamentally dependent on the continuing
ﬂow of ecosystem services (Corvalán et al. 2005).
Among poor and vulnerable populations in
particular, climate change is already aﬀecting
health in myriad ways and, more generally,
climate change presents increasing future health
threats worldwide (McMichael et al. 2012).
Climate change aﬀects health through primary,
secondary and tertiary mechanisms, including
its impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem service
provision (Butler 2014a), adding urgency to the
task of addressing other international health
priorities (Haines et al. 2012). The recognition
that climate change mitigation strategies can
have substantial beneﬁts for both health and
biodiversity conservation presents policy options
that are potentially both more cost–eﬀective and
socially attractive than are those that address these
priorities independently (Haines et al. 2009).
The magnitude and breadth of these impacts
will require large-scale cross-sectoral efforts

and integrative approaches to the analysis of
environmental change and health outcomes.
In turn, these must draw not from an isolated
analysis of health impacts but also draw on
historical and contemporary insights about the
underlying “factors that have determined the
structure and distribution of biodiverse systems”
(Hoberg and Brooks 2015). Holistic strategies for
climate change mitigation and adaptation, which
jointly consider multiple objectives, including
biodiversity conservation and livelihoods, will
likely be more eﬀective and sustainable than
stand-alone strategies that focus on any single
objective, such as carbon sequestration (Heller
and Zavaleta 2009).
Looking ahead, global health leaders are now
calling for a “planetary health” approach with
strengthened focus on threats to human
civilizations and, ultimately, human survival,
from disturbances in planetary systems (Horton
2013; Lancet-Rockefeller Foundation Commission
on Planetary Health 2015), and an ecosocial
understanding of health, which acknowledges
its ecological, economic and social foundations.
There is a pressing need to formally recognize
key environmental limits and processes, and
the thresholds that we must respect in order
to maintain the sustainability of our planet
(CBD 2014; Rockström et al. 2009). The current
reliance on gross domestic product (GDP) as the
primary indicator of success has led to perverse
outcomes and has not delivered fair levels of wellbeing for society or individuals (Fleurbaey and
Blanchet 2013). Contraction and convergence
will bring potential health beneﬁts (Stott 2006).
Accounting for beneﬁts to health and well-being
in development decision-making can encourage
transitions to more sustainable and equitable
patterns of resource use and consumption and,
at the same time, improve population health (Dora
et al. 2014). These changes are essential to avoid
widespread and profound damage to ecosystems,
upon which human survival ultimately depends.

²⁶ World Health Assembly resolution 61.19: Climate change and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. Available
at: http://www.who.int/phe/news/wha/en/index.html.
²⁷ http://www.who.int/globalchange/mediacentre/events/climate-health-conference/en/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 237

UNDP BANGLADESH / FLICKR

14. Increasing resilience and disaster
risk reduction: the value of biodiversity
and ecosystem approaches to resistance,
resilience and relief
1. Introduction
Increasing evidence suggests that the frequency,
nature and scale of (at least certain types of)
natural disasters is changing: more mid- and
small-sized disasters are now occurring more
often, while increasing urbanization and the threat
of climate change place more focus on the future
social, economic, environmental and public health
impacts of natural disaster events (ADW 2012;
Guha-Sapir et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2014; Adger
et al. 2014). Three of the top 10 risks in terms
of impact over the next 10 years are identiﬁed as
environmental risks – water crises, the failure of
climate change adaptation and loss of biological
diversity (Global Risks Perception Survey 2014).
The United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) deﬁnes a “disaster”
as a serious disruption of the functioning of a
community or a society, involving widespread
human, material, economic or environmental
losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of
the aﬀected community or society to cope using
its own resources (UNISDR 2009). Disaster
events can be natural or anthropogenic in origin,
or be triggered by a combination of these factors.
Human-induced disasters can include conﬂict and
pollution events, while natural disasters may be
geophysical (earthquakes, landslides, avalanches,
volcanic eruptions), climatic (hurricane, tsunami,
flooding, drought, storm surge) or biological

(epidemics, pest infestations). Combining these
elements, anthropogenic activities – such as road
construction, deforestation and mining – can
cause or exacerbate natural disasters. The impact of
these infrastructures, and ecosystem disturbance
more broadly, may also pose immediate health
risks, by contributing to disease emergence or food
insecurity, or increasing vulnerability to mental
health issues, for example.¹ These are referred to as
“socionatural hazards”, whereby human activities
overexploit or degrade environmental resources,
increasing the magnitude of disasters and/or the
frequency with which they occur.
Disaster situations are associated with signiﬁcant
challenges for public health. The most immediate
threat to health may be posed by the disaster
event itself; for example, geophysical and extreme
weather events can cause signiﬁcant physical
and mental trauma and loss of life (Guha Sapir
et al. 2014; Du et al. 2010; Wisner et al. 2008),
while epidemics are by their nature primarily a
public health concern. Furthermore, disasters
can exacerbate other public health risk factors,
by altering the natural and physical environment,
aﬀecting critical infrastructure (e.g. associated with
clean water and sanitation or primary health care),
and changing human conditions (e.g. through
¹ For example, the impact of dams can significantly
contribute to the emergence and spread of schistosomiasis,
as described in the chapter on water quality.

238 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

displacement, injury, or loss of social and family
support). In some circumstances, this can lead to
an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks
(Watson et al. 2007; Kouadio et al. 2012). People
aﬀected by disasters – either through direct impact
or perhaps indirectly through loss of employment
or social disruption – are often vulnerable to
psychological stress and related health conditions,
including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic
stress disorder (Neria et al. 2008). Where disaster
events impact on food production systems or
otherwise reduce the availability of basic foods,
those aﬀected may also be at risk for nutritional
deﬁcit (Weingärtner 2005; UN SCN 2002). The
health burden of disasters is likely to increase as
a result of climate change (Sena et al. 2014; Kein
2008).
Recognition of the widespread ecological and
humanitarian impacts associated with humaninduced disasters, including the aftermaths of
conﬂict and land-use change, has highlighted the
need for sustainable multistakeholder solutions
(Hanson 2011; Guha-Sapir and D’aoust 2011;
Leaning and Guha-Sapir 2013; Promper et al.
2014).
The changing nature of disasters is likely to result
in greater loss of life, considerable economic costs,
reduced livelihood opportunities and signiﬁcant –
possibly lasting – damage to critical ecosystems
such as watersheds or coastal wetlands. However,
while disasters can have a detrimental impact on
biodiversity and may even result in the collapse
of essential ecosystem services, diverse and wellmanaged environments can help reduce disaster
risks and enhance community resilience to both
natural and anthropogenic events.
Urban expansion and infrastructure development,
increasing population pressures, unsustainable
agricultural intensiﬁcation and climate change, all
of which can be signiﬁcant drivers of biodiversity
loss and ill-health, are increasing disaster risks
for many communities. Rapid-onset, previously
infrequent, high-impact disasters, for example,
are now considered the norm, and many locations
and communities are experiencing greater
susceptibility to repeated and prolonged disaster

events. More small- and medium-sized disasters
are also occurring now and the cumulative eﬀects
of these on the assets – including biodiversity –
and livelihoods of vulnerable populations may,
in the long term, have the same eﬀects as highmagnitude events. Understanding the nature of
potential disasters is being increasingly recognized
as necessary for informed decision-making.
Biodiversity – particularly its role in underpinning
ecosystem services – can play a crucial role in
disaster risk management before, during and
after an event by fostering resistance, building
resilience and assisting recovery. Expanding on the
need for more integrative approaches discussed
throughout this volume, such as the ecosystem,
Ecohealth, or One Health approach, this chapter
describes an ecosystem-based approach to disaster
risk reduction (discussed in detail below) and
examines the ways in which ecosystem services
can support the ability of communities to manage
disaster risk in an integrated and sustainable
manner. The three sections that follow expose the
heterogeneity of disaster events and the responses
of ecosystems to such events, drawing upon an
ecosystem-based approach, with support from a
number of relevant case studies.

1.1 Overview: resistance, resilience
and recovery
In the academic literature related to disaster
management, the terms “resistance” and
“resilience” are often used interchangeably,
although there are some important distinctions
between them (Green 2008). While resistance
refers to the ability of a system to avoid having
a disaster impact in the ﬁrst instance, disaster
resilience pertains to the ability of a system to
mitigate, recover from, or adjust to, a disaster.
Resistance can therefore be thought of as a form of
proactive resilience, denoting capacity to anticipate
a disaster and act on this before it can materialize.
“Recovery” pertains to the restoration (and
improvement, where appropriate) of facilities,
infrastructure and livelihoods in disaster-aﬀected
communities after an event has occurred, often
including rehabilitation and reconstruction
(UNISDR 2009). For a holistic and sustainable

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 239

disaster response, these activities should
be integrated with development initiatives,
combining tangible restoration projects with
capacity building, awareness-raising and policy
formulation (WCPT 2014).
The identiﬁcation of standards and metrics for
measuring disaster resilience is one of the many
challenges faced by policy-makers. This concept
has been examined by a broad range of research
perspectives. Expanding on the key concepts
described above, this chapter adopts a temporal
perspective, examining the role of biodiversity
and well-managed ecosystems in disaster risk
reduction, and exploring the beneﬁts these can
oﬀer before, during and after disaster events.
This perspective has been adopted because – as
described throughout this volume – the impacts
of disasters on complex ecosystems and health
can vary considerably through space and time.
A socioecological dimension has also received
considerable attention and it is worth noting that
both resilience and vulnerability are also inﬂuenced
by social characteristics (see, for example, Cutter et
al. 2008). In coupled socioecological systems, the
same drivers can result in both social (including
health) and environmental inequities (e.g. Bunch
2011). Considering these dimensions is, therefore,
critical to improving public health outcomes
and reversing the drivers of negative ecosystem
change. Section two describes the potential of
ecosystem-based approaches to prevent disasters
in their entirety, or to mitigate their eﬀects should
this not be possible. Section three adopts a slightly
diﬀerent approach and examines the complexity
of the links between biodiversity and disasters,
emphasizing the reciprocity of this relationship.
While ecosystems can foster resistance, buﬀer the
eﬀects of disasters and assist with response and
recovery, disasters can cause signiﬁcant ecosystem
degradation and biodiversity loss, which may
catalyse or exacerbate the risks of further events.
This is illustrated by the case study on refugees
and internally displaced persons (IDPs) described
in section 3.

2. Biodiversity and disaster
risk reduction: prevention and
mitigation
This section outlines the integral role of
biodiversity in disaster management, with
a speciﬁc focus on its ability to eliminate or
lessen the impacts of certain events. Wellmanaged and healthy ecosystems represent
an opportunity to reduce disaster risk, which
eschews a total reliance on physical engineering
structures, promoting integrated use of certain
ecosystems with physical infrastructure, oﬀering
a sustainable and cost–eﬀective way to reduce
disaster exposure, magnitude and frequency. By
conserving and restoring ecosystems, sustainable
natural resource management has the potential to
make a signiﬁcant contribution to the prevention
and mitigation of disasters, addressing existing
and emerging risks to foster resistance and build
resilience. At the same time, such an approach
goes a long way towards ensuring that certain
natural resources, including food and medicinal
products – both known and not yet discovered –
are potentially available for use by communities
who depend on these as a traditional form of
livelihood and food security.
The World Risk Report (2012) conceptualizes
risk as an outcome of the interaction between
the likelihood a disaster and the vulnerability
of societies, with vulnerability comprising the
abilities and capacities of people or systems to
cope with and adapt to the negative impacts of
disaster events, including health impacts. Thus,
risk is deﬁned as a product of disaster exposure and
the susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptive
capacities of a population. These population
features are determined by the interplay of a
range of physical, sociocultural, economic, political
and environmental factors in a speciﬁc context,
indicating the complexity of “risk” as a concept
and its perpetual (trans)formation (ADW 2012).
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a systematic
approach to identifying, assessing and reducing
the risks of disaster events. Strategies aim to
reduce the likelihood of disaster events, minimize
vulnerabilities and prevent, mitigate and/or

240 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

enhance preparedness towards the adverse
impacts of disasters (UNISDR 2004).
Conventionally, attempts at DRR have focused
on the protection of people and infrastructure
through zoning and/or using “hard” engineering
solutions, such as dams, levees and sea walls.
As described in the chapter on water, these
infrastructures are often expensive to build and
operate, can generate unforeseen environmental
and social consequences and – in many
cases – have fallen short in the performance of
their protective duties (ProAct 2008; Badola and
Hussain 2005; Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash 2009). In
light of this realization – and the changing nature
of disaster events described above – a search for
alternative means of reducing disaster risk has
opened opportunities for increased attention to
ecosystem-based management approaches.

Ecosystem engineering solutions – based on
ecosystem services that use natural and/or
managed ecosystems – comprise an integral
component of ecosystem-based strategies and have
become increasingly popular, particularly since the
2004 Indian ocean tsunami (ProAct 2008). This
disaster, in particular, highlighted the potential
protective capacities of coastal forests and brought
mangrove rehabilitation and conservation to the
forefront of the environmental agenda in SouthEast Asia (Giri et al. 2008). At the global scale,
an increasing number of United Nations (UN)
agencies and international nongovernmental
organizations (INGOs) have since expanded their

UNDP BANGLADESH / FLICKR

The ecosystem-based approach to DRR recognizes
and seeks to investigate and use the potential of
biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services

to support the ability of communities to reduce
and adapt to risk in an integrated and sustainable
manner. It has been described as one of the few
approaches that can impact all elements of the
disaster risk equation: reducing exposure and
vulnerabilities, and increasing the resilience of
exposed communities and their assets (PEDRR
2013).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 241

interest in ecosystem-based approaches to DRR
and plan to further integrate these into their
core activities in recognition of the “increasing
importance of ecosystem management in adapting
and responding to climate change impacts and
associated disaster risks” (UNEP 2009; World
Bank 2009).
In the international policy arena, the Hyogo
Framework for Action (HFA) (2005–2015) also
acknowledges the role of healthy ecosystems
and sustainable environmental management in
reducing disaster risks. Under its fourth Priority
for Action – “reduce the underlying risk factors”
– activities include the “appropriate management
of fragile ecosystems” and “the sustainable use
and management of ecosystems... to reduce risks
and vulnerabilities”. Unfortunately, efforts at
ecosystem management for DRR have been largely
made on an ad-hoc basis, and a mid-term review of
the HFA determined that Priority Four has made
the least progress of the ﬁve Priorities for Action
(UNEP 2009b; van Eeden 2013; PEDRR 2013).
This is illustrative of a general difficulty
encountered in the context of disaster
management strategies, whereby there is often a
disconnect between the intentions of government
authorities, humanitarian and relief organizations,
donors and civil society, and the emergence of
practical and appropriate interventions in the
ﬁeld. Opportunities to adopt ecosystem-based
adaptation (EbA) measures have not been taken
and laudable de jure proclamations extolling the
beneﬁts of biodiversity and ecosystem services for
sustainable DRR have not been translated into de
facto actions, with concomitant implications for
human security. EbA strategies that have been
implemented have often been prone to failure, due
typically to an absence of local participation, various
financial and technical impediments, and the
recurrent underutilization of scientiﬁc knowledge
(Quarto 2012; Kathiresan 2008). Notwithstanding
these challenges, a number of successful EbA DRR
experiences in recent years attest to the potential of
this approach to contribute to disaster prevention
and mitigation, helping to build the resistance and
resilience of human systems to existing, emerging
and evolving risks.

2.1 Disaster prevention: the role of
biodiversity in reducing the likelihood
of disaster events
Disaster prevention expresses the concept of and
intention to completely avoid potential adverse
impacts through action taken in advance (UNISDR
2009). It is closely related to the concept of disaster
resistance, which suggests the ability of a system to
evade the onset of a disaster and its impacts, and
to continue to function at close to normal capacity
and capability.
Prevention has only recently become a permanent
feature of modern disaster management
frameworks – accompanying a general shift from
reactive to proactive disaster responses. Examples
include the construction of dams or embankments
that reduce ﬂood risks, and land-use regulations
that prohibit settlement in high-risk zones. In
terms of EbA for disaster prevention, ecosystems
can also deliver beneﬁts. For example, properly
sited wetlands can reduce ﬂood risks through
water ﬂow regulation, while certain mixtures of
vegetation cover can – according to the speciﬁc site
location and characteristics – help act as a form of
ecological engineering, stabilizing steep slopes and
preventing or reducing the scale of avalanches, soil
erosion and gulley formation.
Although preventive measures are designed to
provide permanent protection from disasters,
it must be recognized that not all disasters can
be prevented and, in many cases, their complete
circumvention is unavoidable. Obviously, where a
disaster may not always be prevented then once
it occurs its impacts need to be mitigated. In
the event of a tsunami or volcanic eruption, for
example, disaster risk should be mitigated to the
greatest extent possible.

2.2 Disaster mitigation: the role of
biodiversity during a disaster event
“Mitigation” describes the alleviation or limitation
of the adverse impacts of disasters. These impacts
often cannot be prevented fully, but their scale or
severity can be substantially lessened by various
strategies and actions (UNISDR 2009).

242 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Case study: The use of vegetation in slope stabilization
In China, arti cial, human-made structures have traditionally been employed to protect communities
and infrastructure from shallow landslides, but these have short lifespans and have in many instances
caused considerable disruption to ecosystems. Ecological engineering involves “the design of
sustainable ecosystems that integrate human society with its natural environment for the bene t of
both” (Stokes et al. 2014). The use of plants as ecological engineers represents a more cost–e ective
and enduring option to combine with civil engineering approaches, with the potential of being selfsustaining, increasing in e cacy over time, enhancing local biodiversity, and providing a plethora of
ecosystem services that can help address various drivers of livelihood vulnerability.
Several studies have shown that the establishment of certain types of vegetation cover signi cantly
reduces shallow landslides and erosion on steep slopes (>35°) due to the ability of root systems
to modify the biophysical, mechanical and hydrological properties of soil (Stokes et al. 2010;
Reubens et al. 2007; Fattet et al. 2011; Ghestem et al. 2011; Mao et al. 2014). To be e ective,
however, ecological engineering techniques require that the mechanical, chemical and architectural
traits of plant root systems be determined on a site-speci c basis to determine optimum species
combinations and planting con gurations for rehabilitating, protecting and stabilizing degraded
slopes (Stokes et al. 2014).
Certain species are traditionally favoured in slope stabilization – such as vetiver grass in China (Ke
et al. 2003), but monocultures can be a high-risk venture, thus favouring a mixture of di erent plant
functional types for slope stabilization, for example (Stokes et al., 2014; Fattet et al., 2011; Pohl et
al. 2009; Reubens et al. 2007). Polyculture plantations provide a range of root systems for optimum
soil stability. They also foster a heterogeneous environment for enhanced biodiversity and overall
ecosystem functioning, as well as supporting opportunities for income generation and a number of
other socioeconomic co-bene ts (Gouzerh et al. 2013; Shi and Li 1999; Post and Kwon 2000; Cavaillé
et al. 2013).
While ecological engineering usually does not incorporate, but can enhance the e ciency of, humanmade structures, another key distinction between these approaches relates to their e ectiveness
over time and space. From the rst moment of hard engineering installation, no erosion should occur;
however, this ecological engineering relies largely on plant growth, leaving a window of susceptibility
during the early years of restoration of a site when plants are too small to fully contribute to soil
stability (Stokes et al. 2004; 2008).

Mitigation measures encompass, for example,
engineering techniques, improved environmental
policies and educational campaigns, and can be
implemented at a range of scales. At the household
level, awareness-raising schemes can encourage
an avoidance of unnecessary risks through
encouraging the preparation of emergency kits or
the procurement of personal insurance. At a larger
scale, the instalment of gas shut-oﬀ valves for
earthquake events or the construction of houses
on stilts to reduce ﬂooding damage also comprise

common mitigation eﬀorts, while early warning
systems may be established and building design
standards integrated into policy at the national
level.
Mitigation is linked to the concept of disaster
resilience, which describes the ability of a
system, community or society to resist, absorb,
accommodate and recover from the eﬀects of a
hazard in a timely and eﬃcient manner, including
through the preservation and restoration of its

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 243

essential basic structures and functions (UNISDR
2009). However, resilience does not necessarily
entail an ability to maintain or return to an
exact pre-disaster state and a vital component of
many resilient systems is their capacity to adapt
to changing conditions. Mangrove forests, for
example, migrate inland, if able, in response to

sea level rise. As mentioned above, these diverse
ecosystems have also proven able to mitigate the
impacts of storm surges and tsunamis, enhancing
the resilience of communities along tropical and
subtropical shorelines (Huxham et al. 2010;
McIvor et al. 2013; Jayasurya 2007).

Case study: Building coastal resilience – bamboo wave barriers in Thailand
ŝI Ʋnd the sea level becoming higher and higher each year. Storms are more frequent and unpredictable.
If the situation continues, we may have nowhere to live.” — Kanit Sookdang
An innovative mangrove restoration project in southern Thailand has used ecological engineering to
mitigate the impacts of coastal storms and erosion. Klong Prasong is a shing village located on Klang
Island in the Krabi river estuary along Thailand s Andaman sea coast. For many years, powerful waves,
strong winds and rising sea levels threatened the village and its inhabitants, eroding the shoreline,
damaging infrastructure and properties, and forcing villagers to relocate to higher land. Local
shermen report that waves have eroded the coastal area by more than 1 km and Kanit Sookdang, a
54-year-old villager from Klong Prasong, has been forced to move house ve times in the past three
decades due to coastal erosion (Sarnsamak 2014; BP 2014).
Representing socionatural disasters, the storms and coastal erosion experienced in Klong Prasong
can be attributed to a complex interplay of natural and anthropogenic factors, including the monsoon
climate, intensive shrimp cultivation and the e ects of climate change. This multifaceted risk
pro le is further complicated by the increasing frequency and severity of coastal erosion and storm
conditions over the past few years, an intensi cation which demonstrates the dynamic nature of
disaster events over time and calls for a new approach to disaster management on Klang Island.
Observing the ine ectiveness of a concrete barrier wall constructed in 2003 – which, despite being
raised in height, failed to protect communities and actually augmented sediment loss and the e ects
of coastal ooding – a community-initiated demonstration project under Raks Thai Foundation s
“Building Coastal Resilience to Reduce Climate Change Impacts in Thailand and Indonesia (BCRCC)”
initiative adopted a true EbA. It constructed a bamboo wave barrier in an attempt to address coastal
erosion and facilitate the re-establishment of mangrove forests (Enright and Nakornchai 2014; Raks
Thai 2014).
It is anticipated that the bamboo wall will reduce wave energy, mitigate erosion and foster the
accumulation of sediment on its landward side in which mangroves can be planted. The structure –
made from bamboo sourced locally in Krabi province – is expected to last approximately seven
years, su cient time to enable mangroves to form a natural bioshield. The dense network of trunks,
branches and aerial roots of mangroves help shelter coastlines from strong winds and generate
a high drag force, which attenuates waves and dissipates their energy across the intertidal zone
(McIvor et al. 2012; Alongi 2008; Feagin et al. 2010; Giri et al. 2008). Mangroves have, in a number of
instances, been observed to signi cantly reduce the impacts of storm events on coastal communities,
reducing economic damages, mitigating biodiversity losses and saving lives (Das and Crépin 2013;
Quartel et al. 2007; Kathiresan and Rajendran 2005; Badola and Hussain 2005).

244 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

While community members and visitors in Klong Prasong will be directly involved in the planting
process – planting locally raised seedlings helps to build stewardship, awareness and support for
the project – the bamboo barrier will also facilitate natural regeneration, trapping oating mangrove
propagules to yield a forest with a high level of biodiversity. It is widely accepted that multispecies
systems have greater ecological resilience than monospeci c forest stands, and are thus more capable
of mitigating natural disasters. Heterogeneous forests also provide a greater range of opportunities
for livelihood diversi cation, demonstrating that ecological restoration, DRR and socioeconomic
development are mutually reinforcing (MAP 2012; ayakody et al. 2012; Vickers et al. 2012).
In addition to enhancing the resilience of coastal communities to disasters, mangrove forests
generate other bene ts by ltering water, absorbing CO2 and providing a breeding habitat for aquatic
animals (Enright and Kaewmahanin 2012; Sudtongkong and Webb 2008; Barraclough and FingerStich 1996). Accordingly, it is hoped that the re-establishment of mangrove forests along the coast
of Klong Prasong will restore local biodiversity and ecosystem functioning for livelihood support,
improved local food security and enhanced community health and well-being.
Although budget restrictions meant that only a single-layer bamboo barrier was constructed under
the BCRCC project, the demonstration of this innovative approach to disaster management convinced
the Krabi Provincial Administrative O ce to build a more substantial, 500 m long double-layer
bamboo barrier, supported with government investments of 1 750 000 Baht (US 55 000). This
illustrates a new commitment by the government to ecosystem-based DRR approaches (Enright and
Nakornchai 2014).
While it is too early to evaluate the long-term impacts of these bamboo wave barriers, a number
of successes have already become apparent. Only eight months after the bamboo was rst put in
place – in une 2013 – assessments found that 15 cm of sediment had accumulated behind the
structure, with a clearly visible di erence in soil strata height between the seaward and landward
sides. Planted Avicennia marina seedlings had a survival rate of 80–90%, compared with rates of
just 10% when the same species was planted in front of the concrete wall. Signi cant increases
have also been recorded in the biodiversity and population sizes of aquatic species, particularly
molluscs: Musculus senhousia, Donex scortum and Meretrix sp. Local people can now expect to collect
at least 3 kg of Donex scortum each during every collection session – a few hours during the low tide
when the mud ats are exposed – which they had been unable to do in the recent past (Enright and
Nakornchai 2014).
This innovative approach to disaster resilience has also had a positive impact on the mental health
and well-being of community members in Klong Prasong. Village residents reported that they used
to sleep uneasily with the sound of strong waves hitting the concrete wall and a constant fear that
seawater would ood their homes. The construction of the bamboo barrier has increased their sense
of security and allows them to sleep peacefully in the knowledge that they are better protected.
Sources: Enright and Nakornchai 2014; Raks Thai 2014

The above case study demonstrates best practice
in the use of an EbA for the mitigation of disaster
risk. The construction of bamboo barriers
and concomitant regeneration of mangrove

ecosystems oﬀ the coast of Klong Prasong has built
the resilience of coastal communities, restored
local biodiversity, and supported the revival of

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 245

a number of livelihood opportunities for a more
prosperous present and sustainable future.
Together, the case studies in this section
demonstrate the ways in which well-managed
ecosystems are able to prevent or mitigate the
impacts of natural disasters, contributing to DRR
by building resilience to diminish the eﬀects of
exposure, or fostering resistance to avert an event
altogether. They also show that – through the
rehabilitation and conservation of ecosystems and
a concomitant enhancement of biodiversity – EbAs
aﬀord a range of environmental and socioeconomic
benefits, which address multiple drivers of
vulnerability, as well as improve the ability of
communities to avoid, withstand and recover from
the impacts of disaster (ProAct 2008). Finally, EbA
measures have been seen to provide a dynamic,
adaptable and innovative disaster management
response, which is vital in a world of emerging and
continually evolving disaster risks (van Slobbe et
al. 2013).

6SHFLƩFFRQVLGHUDWLRQVIRU
internally displaced persons and
refugeesƹ
Disaster events – whether driven by anthropogenic
or natural factors, or a combination of both – are
a major cause of population displacement, either
within or across national borders. In 2011, some
² The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as
someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion,
is outside the country of his nationality” (UNHCR 2014).
Notably, this deﬁnition excludes environmental drivers of
population displacement and refugees may also be forced
to migrate due to natural disasters although, in many cases,
environmental disruptions result in internal migration
rather than relocation to another country (Hyndman
2009). Unlike refugees, internally displaced persons
(IDPs) have not crossed an international border and
remain within their home countries, retaining the rights
and protection aﬀorded by citizenship under both human
rights and international humanitarian law. The taxonomic
distinction of these groups serves to mask a number of
shared characteristics, as well as concealing considerable
internal heterogeneity in terms of backgrounds and
experiences. As such, the term “displaced populations” is
used here to denote both refugees and IDPs (Oucho 2007).

14.9 million people became internally displaced
due to natural disasters, the majority of them
across Asia (UNHCR 2014). Current predictions
regarding climate change as well as recurrent civil
conﬂicts and cases of political unrest will likely
lead to further displacements in the future, forcing
people into marginal lands, and urban and periurban settlements.
This section describes the complexity of the
relationship between displaced populations and
biodiversity, which can be seen as simultaneously
symbiotic and destructive. An exploration of the
dependence of refugees and IDPs on ecosystem
goods and services – during a crisis, in its
immediate aftermath and during the longer-term
post-disaster phase – is followed by an examination
of the impacts that humanitarian operations can
have in terms of the overexploitation and rapid
degradation of natural resources, exposing an
ironic situation in which those resources upon
which communities may be most reliant are the
ones being degraded or destroyed.
Although displaced populations are sometimes
blamed for causing environmental degradation
in the areas where they are forced to settle, it
is extremely difficult to distinguish refugee/
IDP impacts from other processes of ecosystem
decline. As such, the contribution of these groups
to biodiversity loss is sometimes overstated, while
the important role they can play in ecosystem
conservation and restoration can be understated
or overlooked.

3.1 Refugees/IDPs rely on biodiversity/
ecosystem goods and services
The survival and longer-term well-being of refugees
and IDPs – in addition to host communities living
within the vicinity of camps – is often dependent
on particular natural resources, and the availability
and accessibility of certain ecosystem goods and
services. In the short term, these may provide
immediate assistance for displaced populations
at the onset of a crisis, during the event and in
its direct aftermath. Supporting the realization
of basic needs, for example, building materials
for rudimentary shelters are typically sourced

246 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

from local forests, while wild foods and natural
medicines may be collected for direct consumption
or sale. This was observed in 1994, when intense
ethnic ﬁghting in Rwanda drove an estimated
600 000 refugees into an area surrounding
Tanzania’s Burigi National Park. In addition to the
serious habitat destruction caused by widespread
tree cutting, the high demand for food that
accompanied the arrival of the refugees caused
wildlife in the park to decline sharply. According to
a report by TRAFFIC (Jambiya et al. 2007), large
mammal populations declined by 60% between
1994 and 1997, at the peak of the refugee inﬂux,
and some wildlife populations were reduced to
less than 10% of their former numbers. Buﬀalo
(Synceros caﬀer) numbers fell from about 2670 to
just 44, the roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus)
and zebra (Equus quagga) populations declined
from 466 to 15, and 6552 to 606, respectively,
and the Lichtenstein’s hartebeest (Sigmoceros
lichtensteinii) vanished completely.
In the longer term, biodiversity can support a range
of livelihood activities. Displaced populations
have been known to utilize wild resources in
opportunistic ways – for example, through
charcoal making and the trading of bushmeat
and ﬁrewood – demonstrating a more complex
relationship than simple passive dependency.
Such activities are often driven by numerous
factors, including mounting population pressures,
a lack of employment and income-generation
opportunities, ineﬀective law enforcement, food
insecurity and the inability of humanitarian
assistance to accommodate dietary and culinary
needs and customs (Jambiya et al. 2007). While
resource-based livelihoods have helped displaced
communities to enhance their resilience to disaster
risks and eschew a dependence on external
organizations, caution must be exercised as the
extraction of certain natural resources can quickly
wreak havoc on ecosystems if not appropriately
managed and monitored, as the example from
Burigi National Park above illustrates.
The collection and sale of ﬁrewood and production
of charcoal are among the few options for income
generation available to refugees and IDPs – who are
typically denied the right to formal employment

– and represent two of the most commonly
adopted natural resource-based livelihood
activities in camp settings. Unfortunately, these
activities place considerable additional pressure on
already stressed ecological systems and have led a
number of host governments to adopt measures
to reduce further environmental degradation, such
as the implementation of encampment policies
(e.g. Kenya and Tanzania) (UNHCR 2002; 2014b).
In most instances, however, policies restricting the
movement of displaced populations are poorly
enforced and have failed to conserve natural
resources. They have also encouraged the uptake of
negative coping strategies (such as illicit resource
gathering and sale of food rations), inhibited selfreliance and fostered dependency (Lyytinen 2009;
Ahlsten et al. 2005).
More sustainable income-generating opportunities
could incorporate environmental conservation
and restoration, and several experiences have
demonstrated the beneﬁts of directly involving
displaced populations in schemes to protect,
enhance and sustainably utilize biodiversity and
ecosystem goods and services in and around camp
settings (Lyytinen 2009).
While it is clear that displaced populations draw
upon a range of ecosystem goods and services to
satisfy immediate survival needs and to support
long-term health and well-being, self-reliance
and livelihood security, these groups – as well as
humanitarian eﬀorts to assist them – typically
present a dual threat to biodiversity and public
health.

3.2 Humanitarian operations can pose
dual threats to biodiversity and human
well-being
Environmental degradation is inevitable in
refugee/IDP situations. Displaced populations
and associated humanitarian operations –
which are in some instances poorly planned and
coordinated – place considerable pressure on
ecosystem goods and services. Deforestation for
shelter construction and fuelwood, the extraction
and pollution of groundwater and livestock
grazing are among the most extensive ecological

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 247

Case study: Rwandan refugees in Gihembe National Park
In Rwanda s Gihembe camp, agricultural activities have fostered economic self-reliance for refugees
who cultivate mushrooms to enrich their diets and generate income. With support from the American
Refugee Committee (ARC), an association of 50 women living with HIV/AIDS has been established and
supported to pursue commercial agriculture. The women have received extensive training on a range
of topics – including association ethics, marketing, basic accountancy and business development
– and encouraged to employ sustainable land management techniques for the conservation of
ecological resources, minimizing soil and water erosion through terrace construction, trench digging
and the planting of 780 agro-forestry trees (ARC 2014).
In seven months, 3700 kg of mushrooms have been harvested, with 3000 kg sold to camp residents,
host community members and a local mushroom farm company (at around 1000 Rwandan francs
US 2 per kg) and the remaining 700 kg divided between the members of the association for
domestic consumption (Gonzalez 2006).
In addition to providing nutritional bene ts, this project has encouraged money management and a
culture of saving has begun to develop among the women. The association account contains over 1.5
million Rwandan francs (US 2200), a third of which is shared as pro t among members and stored in
xed deposit accounts to accrue interest (ARC 2014). This resource-based income-generating project
has also contributed to ghting the stigma surrounding HIV in the camp. Refugees and members of
the host community who purchase the mushrooms have been made aware that those living with this
disease are still able to work productively and contribute to life in Gihembe, reducing prejudice and
enhancing the quality of life for all those with HIV (ARC 2014).
The agricultural activities in Gihembe refugee camp demonstrate that well-managed ecosystems
are capable of providing a direct source of livelihoods for displaced populations. With active
participation and capacity building, the refugees were able to help themselves, utilizing locally
available natural resources to rebuild and improve their lives in a digni ed and sustainable manner
(UNHCR 2014).

threats engendered by the sudden arrival of
large numbers of people. This results in the loss
of indigenous plant and animal species and a
substantial decline in biodiversity (Oucho 2007).
With time, ecosystem degradation may spread
beyond the immediate conﬁnes of a camp, where
other disaster response activities might be under
way. In north-east Kenya’s Dadaab refugee camp,
for example, the deforestation radius around the
camp increased from 5–10 km to 70 km between
1990 and 2010 (Gitau 2011).
Any additional stress to existing environmental
degradation will not only have significant
implications for displaced populations (whose
livelihoods and well-being are likely to depend to

some degree on the goods and services provided
by local ecosystems), but will also impact members
of host communities.³ The establishment of a
refugee/IDP camp and the subsequent inﬂux of
thousands of people (potentially from diﬀerent
ethnic and cultural backgrounds) change the
environment of host communities in both
positive and negative ways. In most cases, initial
kindness gives way to hostility as biodiversity is
diminished and resource scarcities arise, inciting
tension between the newcomers and host
community members, which can result in conﬂict

³ Host communities comprise the local, regional and
national political and socioeconomic structures within
which refugees live (UNHCR 2014).

248 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Case study: Pressure on water resources: Syrian refugees in Jordan
ordan is one of the world s most arid countries but, since 2011, potential threats to water and food
security have been exacerbated by the arrival of over 600 000 Syrian refugees. This population in ux
has accelerated groundwater depletion and caused water tables to drop precipitously, increasing
salinization and rendering what little water remains less safe for human consumption.
ordanian households use an estimated 80 L of water per day on average, but communities in which
refugee camps have been established have seen the average supply drop below 30 L per day, with
accompanying declines in sanitation and a rise in disease incidence. As the quality and quantity of
limited water reserves continues to deteriorate, attention has turned towards demand and the poor
water conservation habits of Syrians, who are unaccustomed to living in a water-scarce environment
and are thus prone to wasting water.
Future e orts at water management must be implemented with long-term sustainability in mind in
order to preserve natural resources, support their restoration and maximize public health bene ts.
A holistic approach incorporating water demand management could also include the promotion of
simple and culturally appropriate conservation practices at the household level in order to reduce
water consumption and facilitate the possibility of groundwater replenishment.
Source: Mercy Corps 2014

(UfS 2013). The case studies below illustrate the
myriad impacts displaced populations can have on
biodiversity in their hosting areas.
While the examples given above illustrate
the detrimental effects that humanitarian
operations can have on biodiversity, ecosystem
functioning and sustainability, this need not
always be the case. It must be recognized that the
environments which displaced populations enter
are not necessarily pristine, but are usually already
undergoing various processes of degradation and
decline. It is not uncommon, though, for these
groups to be blamed for declining conditions
that predate their arrival, particularly where
environmental baseline data and monitoring are
unavailable (Oucho 2007).
The presence of Mozambican refugees in Malawi’s
Dedza and Ntcheu districts, for example, had little
discernable impact on soil fertility or the depletion
of many other natural resources (Barnett 2003).
Although most Mozambicans made use of tree
products – notably for fuelwood and construction
poles – little overall diﬀerence was noted in the
rates of forest coverage between refugee and

non-refugee aﬀected areas. Refugees rarely felled
trees for fuelwood alone – collecting most of it
from the ground or as a byproduct of trees felled
for other purposes. The main environmental
change caused by refugees has been a decline in
woody biomass.
Localized instances of deforestation and
considerable variation in the extent of woody
biomass depletion throughout Dedza and Ntcheu
districts – even in areas subjected to similar human
pressures – demonstrate that the simple presence
of refugee communities does not necessarily
lead to biodiversity loss. This heterogeneity is an
outcome of interactions between various local
environmental and sociocultural factors, such
as the presence and enforcement of informal
regulations and established norms of resource
access (Barnett 2003). The ways in which refugee
livelihoods interact with the environment are
complex and diverse, with substantial diﬀerences
often discernable between, and within, speciﬁc
locations.
Refugees and IDPs can make a significant
contribution to conservation and rehabilitation

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 249

eﬀorts. In a number of West African countries,
for example, the presence of displaced populations
led to the transfer of skills for sustainable
cultivation, plant management and resourcebased entrepreneurship between these groups and
host communities, as well as fostering improved
environmental consciousness and awareness of
conservation issues (Oucho 2007).
As mentioned above, strategies to reduce
environmental degradation and restore
ecosystems oﬀer the potential to provide muchneeded income-generating opportunities in
refugee and IDP situations as well as enhance
biodiversity. A number of successful projects
demonstrate the beneﬁts of collaborating with
displaced populations as well as host communities
for eﬀective and contextually appropriate disaster
responses, which reduce the risks associated with
further resource overexploitation and provide
livelihood support for impacted groups.

This section has illustrated the complex nature of
the relationship between displaced populations,
biodiversity, human security and well-being.
While refugees and IDPs often rely directly on
local ecosystem goods and services to meet a
range of short- and long-term needs essential
to their well-being, the ongoing degradation
and overexploitation of natural resources in and
around settlements threaten their ability to fulﬁl
basic daily requirements, partake in sustainable
livelihood activities and achieve autonomy. There
is therefore an urgent need for context-speciﬁc and
participatory interventions to reduce the demands
placed upon local ecosystem goods and services
by displaced populations, and to foster the more
sustainable extraction and utilization of natural
resources. As this chapter has demonstrated,
integrative, cross-sectoral approaches, such as the
ecosystem approach, are required and may hold
the key to meeting these challenges.

UNDP BANGLADESH / FLICKR

In Dzaleka refugee camp in Malawi, refugees
have established the “Education and Plantation
Strategies Association” (EPSA), which aims to
boost local incomes through the planting of
6000 fruit trees both within and beyond the
camp’s limits. EPSA members grow seedlings

from the fruit they eat and have started a small
nursery near the camp, while the running of a
sustainable agriculture and gardening course has
seen the creation of a community garden and
the introduction of a permaculture project for
additional livelihood opportunities (Stapleton
2014).

250 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

STEPHAN BACHENHEIMER

STEPHAN BACHENHEIMER / WORLD BANK PHOTO / FLICKR

15. Population, consumption
and the demand for resources;
pathways to sustainability
1. Introduction
The large-scale transformations of ecosystems to
meet the needs of growing human populations
have greatly accelerated over the past century,
transforming up to three quarters of the Earth’s
biosphere, and diverting much of its biological
productivity for human use (Brown 2004; MEA
2005; Ellis & Rammankutty 2008; Steﬀen et
al 2015). The growing conversion of land for
agriculture, pasture, energy and commercial
development has grown steadily alongside the
extraction of natural resources, the erosion of
landscapes and the unabated loss of the Earth’s
genetic and species diversity.
While many of these developments have beneﬁtted
the lives of millions of people, improving their
access to food, shelter, energy, water and other
resources, they have often come at the expense
of human health and the ecosystems upon which
we all rely for our survival (MEA 2005). They have
also inevitably altered the nature and functions
of many of our ecosystems, in turn shaping the
burdens of disease and inequity, across geopolitical
boundaries, from local to global scales (Robbins
2011).
The previous chapters describe the multitude of
linkages between biodiversity and human health.
They also note that there are common drivers of
change to biodiversity and human health (see

chapter 2, in particular). The linkages and the
origins and impacts of the drivers occur at various
spatial scales and have a wide range of implications
for human well-being.
This chapter looks at the underlying drivers of
change and their current trends. It examines
possible future scenarios of change and their
implications for biodiversity, human health, and
the interactions between them. Looking at future
scenarios can be useful in elucidating potential
synergies and tradeoﬀs in policies for health and
biodiversity conservation as well as in examining
the feasibility of meeting health and biodiversity
objectives in the context of broader goals such as
the emerging sustainable development goals.
In recent decades, there has been an increased
interest in the implications of environmental
change for human health (WHO 2005), often
with a particular focus on the impacts of climate
change (See Chapter 13). More recently still,
the importance of biodiversity and its decline
for human well-being has been also highlighted
(Cardinale et al 2012). In fact, threats to human
health from climate change and biodiversity
change need to be addressed together, in a
coherent framework. This is necessary not only
because of the interactions between the impacts
on human health due to climate change and those
due to biodiversity change (see Chapter 13), but
also because consideration needs to be given to

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 251

the potential tradeoﬀs and synergies in addressing
these challenges.

maternal and child mortality persist, and access
to family planning is lowest (UN DESA, 2015).

Addressing the direct and underlying drivers of
biodiversity loss, poverty and ill health, under
present and future challenges also ultimately
requires behavioural change by individuals,
communities, organizations, industries,
businesses and governments. Understanding,
awareness and appreciation of the diverse values
of biodiversity, ecosystems and the services they
deliver underpin the combined willingness of
millions of individuals to undertake purposeful
actions to address these drivers of change (see
Chapter 16). Greater awareness of the values of
biodiversity and ecosystem services also allows
individuals and governments to assess more
accurately the trade-oﬀs of their policies and
decisions (CBD, 2013).

Population growth may have some positive
consequences. For example, some economists
have argued that population growth induces
technological innovation, and provides
development benefits including agricultural
innovation and intensification (e.g. Boserup
1965; Das Gupta 2011). However, population
expansion also places increased demand on
healthcare systems and can greatly extenuate
pressures on natural resources. In particular, rapid
population growth in high fertility countries can
create a range of economic, social, health and
environmental challenges as well as for governance
(lagging investments in health, education, and
infrastructure). (Brown 20014; Bongaarts 2013;
Gerland et al 2015)

2. Current Trends and Alternatives

Among the most robust empirical ﬁndings in the
literature on fertility transitions are that higher
rates of contraceptive use and female education are
associated with faster fertility decline (Hirschman
1994; Sen 1999). These suggest that the projected
rapid population growth could be moderated by
greater investments in family planning programs
to satisfy the unmet need for contraception
(Petersen et al 2013), as well as investments in
girls’ education.

1.1 Population pressures
The increase in the exploitation of natural
resources since the 20th century is in part
attributable to a rapid and sustained increase in
the global population.. The world population, now
7.2 billion people, will likely increase to between
9.2 billion and 9.9 billion in 2050 and between 9.6
billion and 12.3 billion in 2100 (80% probability
levels). Much of the increase is expected to happen
in Africa, in part due to higher fertility rates and
a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline
(Gerland et al. 2014). While population is expected
to decline in some regions, notably in Europe, the
overall global population is expected to increase,
on average, by over 10% through to 2030, with the
largest population growth occurring in low and
low-to-middle income countries (UN-DESA 2015).
The greatest population density has also been
projected to occur across areas that are already
densely populated, including coastal regions in
which communities are facing sea level rise and
other threats posed by climate change (The Earth
Institute, 2006). The highest birth rates and largest
increase in number of women of reproductive age
are expected in Africa, where the highest rates of

Greater investment in the education of girls and
women, improved access to and awareness of
birth control and family planning would not only
improve human health and well-being directly, it
would also help slow and reverse trends among
countries with the highest projected growth
rates and concomitant pressures on ecosystems
(Speidel et al. 2007; Sachs 2008; Population and
Environment 2007). However, in many cases,
economic development and healthcare systems
have not kept apace with the growing needs of
the fastest-growing populations, particularly
in low-income countries already struggling to
expand healthcare services to women and girls
(The Lancet 2012). In regions with the highest
projected population growth rates, notably SubSaharan Africa, there remains a largely unmet
need for access to contraception, a reduction of

252 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

unwanted pregnancies, and the implementation
of family planning policies (Ezeh et al. 2012).

3. Consumption – the demand for
food and energy
Global demand for food, energy, water, shelter
and healthcare has risen dramatically over the
past 100 years, and this trend is likely to continue,
leading to a new set of interrelated conservation,
public health and development challenges
(Eg.: Tillman and Clark 2014; Neﬀ et al. 2011;
Costello et al. 2009). The resulting pressures on
natural ecosystems, including biodiversity loss,
may not only lead to increased competition for
food, water, energy and land, aﬀect economies,
and bring us closer to “tipping points” (Leadley et
al 2010, 2014; See also Chapter 2); they will also
have major implications for global public health,
with disproportionate impacts on the poor and
vulnerable.
While population growth contributes to this
increased demand, its impact is dwarfed by the
eﬀects of rising consumption by more prosperous
members of the global community. The “ecological
footprint” provides an estimate of the per capita
impact of consumption on biodiversity and
ecological systems. It is measured in “global
hectares”, with the earth able to support the
current population with just under two global
hectares per person. Most countries in Africa
have per capita footprints well within this value,
while the per capita footprint in Western Europe is
about and in North America about (Wackernagel,
1994; Global Footprint Network, 2015).
With respect to greenhouse gas emissions,
Satterthwaite (2009) notes that significant
proportion of the world’s urban (and rural)
populations have consumption levels that are
so low that they contribute little or nothing to
such emissions. He concludes: “if the lifetime
contribution to GHG emissions of a person added
to the world’s population varies by a factor of more
than 1,000 depending on the circumstances into
which they are born and their life choices, it is
misleading to see population growth as the driver
of climate change”.

According to a recent study 1.3 billion people
worldwide do not have access to an electric grid
(IEA 2013), including over three quarters of the
population (or 600 million people) in Africa alone
(IEA 2011). This leads to an estimated 600 000
preventable yearly deaths from indoor fumes
(UNEP 2015a). According to recent UN estimates,
the burning of fossil fuels for lighting accounts for
90 million tonnes of CO2 annually (UNEP 2015b),
and an additional 270,000 tons of black carbon
emitted as a result of kerosene lamps for lighting
(UNEP 2015a). Without adequate measures, the
number of people without access to an electric
grid in Africa is projected to increase to 700 000
by 2030, further extenuating pressures of climate
change on ecosystems and public health (UNEP
2015a). Thus eﬀorts to reduce the use of emissions
from fossil fuels must be accompanied with eﬀorts
to provide modern energy for all.
A well-nourished global population expected
to exceed 9 billion by 2050 would require an
estimated increase in food production ranging
between 70% and 100%, with a corresponding
rise in demand for processed foods, meat, dairy
and ﬁsh as populations become more urbanized
(Godfray et al. 2010; Royal Society of London
2009). Tilman and Clark (2014) note that dietary
trends towards diets higher in reﬁned sugars,
reﬁned fats, oils and meats, could lead to land
clearing for agriculture and an 80% increase in
associated greenhouse gas emissions. Such dietary
trends would also increase the burden of disease
from type II diabetes, coronary heart diseases
and other chronic non-communicable diseases.
However, as noted in Chapter 6, alternative diets
(such as the Mediterranean diet), if widely adopted,
would greatly reduce impacts on biodiversity and
climate change and also improve health outcomes.
Water resources are projected to come
under increased pressure, both as a result of
increased pollution and demand. In developed
and developing countries alike, water stress
hinders economic growth and threatens food
production systems and food security (Bogardi
et al. 2012; Viala 2008; Brown 2004). As the
chapter on freshwater indicates, this resource
is consumptively used for agriculture, as well as

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 253

domestic use, and, increasingly, by the industrial
sector (Schwarzenbach et al. 2006), often to the
detriment of the most vulnerable populations who
have least access to health care, energy supplies
and other essential services. The freshwater crisis
mirrors those related to other ecosystem services,
including the impact of sustained air pollution,
and the decline of ‘soil based’ ecosystem services
which aﬀect crop yields and land productivity (see
e.g. Barrios 2007).
Addressing increased pressures on natural
resources, while also ensuring that the basic needs
of all for food and modern energy are met, will
necessarily need to greater emphasis on equality
of access to and use of these natural resources.
In fact, empirical research shows that more equal
societies are also associated with better health
outcomes, among other factors of human wellbeing (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009).

4. Global trends to 2050 and
pathways to sustainability
Increasingly, scenarios of biodiversity change are
being used to explore (Pereira et al. 2010). Most
scenarios indicate that biodiversity will continue
to decline over the 21st century. However, the
range of projected changes is much broader than
most studies suggest, partly because there are
major opportunities to intervene through better
policies (Pereira et al. 2010).
Recently, scenarios are also being used to explore
alternative pathways for achieving globally
agreed goals. For example PBL-the Netherlands
Assessment Agency has developed scenarios to
elucidate pathways to achieve the 2050 Vision of
the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020,
while also meeting other globally agreed goals
(PBL 2012). These scenarios have been updated
and extended for GBO-4 (see box) (CBD 2014;
Kok, Alkemade et al (2014)).

Box 1: Global Biodiversity Outlook-4: A mid term assessment of progress towards
the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
In 2014, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity assessed progress
in the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity
Targets. (See Chapter I, box 1, on the basis of an evaluation contained in the fourth edition of the
Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-4; see also Tittensor et al 2014). The assessment shows that
signi cant progress towards meeting the components of the majority of the Aichi targets. However,
in most cases, this progress will not be su cient to achieve the targets set for 2020 and additional
action is required. The evaluation was based on multiple lines of evidence including global
assessments extrapolated trends in 55 indicators to 2020 and 2050, including response indicators
and indicators based on projections on the state of biodiversity. The conclusions are that while
responses to biodiversity loss are increasing (i.e countries are taking action), the large majority
of projections of the state of biodiversity to 2020 and 2050 show a signi cant deterioration and
pressures on biodiversity continue to increase.
The Outlook also identi es actions that would help to accelerate progress and concludes that
attaining most of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets will require implementation of a package of
actions typically including: legal and policy frameworks; socioeconomic incentives aligned to such
frameworks; public and stakeholder engagement; monitoring and enforcement. Coherence of policies
across sectors and the corresponding government ministries is necessary to deliver an e ective
package of actions.

254 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Business-as-usual scenarios were contrasted
against plausible alternative scenarios to 2050
that would simultaneously curb biodiversity loss,
mitigate climate change, alleviate poverty and,
in so doing, contribute to maintaining essential
ecosystem services that sustain human health (see
Figure 1).
Drawing on the ﬁndings of the Global Biodiversity
Outlook report described in the preceding section,
the scenarios in Figure 1 suggest that there are
multiple plausible pathways to simultaneously
achieve the intersecting goals of maximizing
biodiversity, human health, and development
outcomes. Under these alternative scenarios,
several biodiversity indicators reﬂecting the health
of our ecosystems and the life-supporting services
that they deliver would also be improved. (see
Figure 2).

Under ‘business as usual’ scenarios, pressures of
increased per-capita consumption and population
growth, energy-intensive agricultural production
that is both water and fossil fuel-intensive,
unsustainable harvest, overconsumption,
indiscriminate and unregulated large-scale
exploitation of terrestrial and marine resources,
the erosion of genetic diversity; pervasive use of
pesticides, nitrogen fertilizers in food production
systems and antibiotics, deforestation, illegal trade,
perverse economic incentives, marginalization
and alienation of poor and vulnerable populations,
and lack of awareness and education on the values
of biodiversity and ecosystem services, will all
combine to exert untenable pressures on the
biosphere and human populations alike. These
pressures have been abundantly demonstrated
throughout this volume. Fortunately, sustainable
alternatives have also been proposed and
evaluated.

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ
A

B

.

.

.

.

.
.

Population Size

Proportion in
Proportion in
averaged
across three response scenarios

Values in
under
business as usual

Values in

tonnes per year

C

Gt CO equivalent

Red List Index

Current levels

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

Species Richness

Mean Species
Abundance

Levels in
averaged across the
three responses scenarios

D

Food production in

Levels in

under business as usual

Food production in

under business as usual

Levels in

averaged across the response scenarios

Food production in

averaged across the three response scenarios

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 255

Common elements of the pathways identiﬁed in
the preceding section include:

(see also chapters on agricultural biodiversity and
nutrition);

•

•

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
energy and industry (see also chapter on climate
change);

• Increasing agricultural productivity and
containing agricultural expansion to prevent
further biodiversity loss and to avoid excessive
greenhouse gas emissions from conversion of
natural habitats (see also chapter on agricultural
biodiversity);
• Restoring degraded land, protecting critical
habitats and resources (see also chapter on
freshwater);
•

Managing biodiversity in agricultural
landscapes

•

Reducing post harvest losses in agriculture and
food waste by retailers and consumers as well as
moderating the increase in meat consumption

Reducing nutrient and pesticide pollution and
water use (see also chapters on freshwater and air
quality and impacts of pharmaceuticals on the
environment);

•

Promoting sustainable harvest, use and trade
of resources used for medicines (see also chapter
on traditional medicine).
As the scenarios in Figure 2 and practical
experience demonstrate, it is possible to achieve
these goals while achieving food security,
protecting biodiversity, curtailing climate change
and attaining other goals for human development.
Improvements in energy production, transmission,
end-use and resource use eﬃciency, are needed,
along with a transition toward the decarbonization
of energy supplies (Neﬀ et al. 2011; Peñuelas
2010; Horton 2007). As noted above, this must
be accompanied by improved access to modern
energy for all. Trends associated with globalized

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɼ
%

%

Target
%

Restore abandoned lands
Reduce nitrogen emmissions
%

Mitigate climate change

Baseline

Reduce nature fragmentation
Reduce infrastructure expansion
Expand protected areas
%

Reduce consumption and waste
Increase agricultural productivity

Global
Decentralised Consumption
Technology
Solutions
Change
%

256 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

industrial food production systems that are
highly reliant on petroleum for the development
of pesticides, industrial agriculture, and the
transportation of food, can only be reversed
through the development of a robust package of
economic measures and policies which includes
taxes on carbon and economic policies that
mitigate the perverse impacts of energy policies
(Horton 2007; Flora 2010). Pollan (2008) argues
that reform of agricultural systems is needed to
meet health, food safety and energy challenges.
The important role of public health in enabling
a smooth transition toward more proactive,
sustainable and equitable social and policy
transitions toward less fossil-fuel dependent
and resilient food production systems also
cannot be overstated (Neﬀ et al. 2011). At the
national level, these changes will need to be
complemented by increased equality in access
to and use of energy and other natural resources
and in access to healthcare and the provision of
related infrastructural innovation. For example,
using indoor wood-burning stoves to increase food
security (or for heating) is counterproductive as
exposure to indoor air pollution is responsible for
a staggering number of preventable deaths¹ and
illnesses each year.
Many of the routine human behaviours that
together deﬁne the functioning of the global
economy will need to be altered if these goals
are to be realized, requiring transformational
change at the at the global, national and
personal levels (Horton, 2007; Schwartz 2011).
Managing, and beneﬁting from, the interlinkages
between biodiversity, ecosystems services and
human health increasingly demands broad-scale
interventions that eﬀectively and sustainably
inﬂuence human behaviour (Freya et al. 2010;
Fulton et al. 2011; The Lancet 2015; see also
Chapter 16).

5. Conclusion
As we embark toward a new sustainable
development agenda in 2015, the identiﬁcation
and prioritization of strategies that jointly deliver
environmental (including biodiversity) and socioeconomic (including health and development)
co-benefits will be both a key challenge and
opportunity. Interlinked eﬀorts to reduce the
ecological footprint of development, including
stressors on biodiversity, energy demand,
and health services provision, will be strategic
priorities.
Population growth, and prevailing consumption
and production patterns are but part of these
challenges, however: population movement, for
example, also causes environmental stress. Conﬂict
prevention can help reduce the environmental
impact of large congregations of displaced
persons in refugee camps (Burkle 2010; see also
chapter 14 in this volume). Similarly careful
environmental impact assessment can mitigate
the eﬀect of communities displaced by large-scale
development projects. The ecological footprint of
city growth and urban pollution, and associated
health impacts described in previous chapters
can be limited by long-term urban planning. In
all these cases a mixture of conservation, public
health and social sciences, demography, and
policy planning is needed to avoid the worst-case
scenarios wherein resource scarcity, ecosystem
degradation, biodiversity loss, human conﬂict,
and climate change combine to present the
perfect storm of multiple, simultaneous, ongoing
humanitarian crises. As further described in the
following chapter, the architects of coherent
strategic policies integrating the biodiversity and
health nexus must harness these opportunities
and reﬂect these imperatives for the health and
well-being of present and future generations.

¹ Based on World Health Organization estimates, in 2012, approximately 4.3 million premature deaths were attributable to
household air pollution.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 257

16. Integrating health and
biodiversity: strategies, tools
and further research
1. Introduction
The various interlinkages between biodiversity
and human health have been surveyed in the
preceding chapters of this volume. Table 1 provides
a summary of the some of these interlinkages
and how the health sector might respond. As
has been demonstrated throughout this volume,
biodiversity and ecosystems should be viewed
as part of the overall public health management
landscape, and a vital resource for promoting
public health and healthy lifestyles, in the
prevention of disease – both communicable and
noncommunicable. (chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 12). A
careful identiﬁcation and assessment of common
drivers (chapter 2) includes land use change
(chapters 5, 7, 15), invasive species (chapters 3,
7), over-exploitation of resources (chapters 9,
11, 15), habitat loss (chapter 7), climate change
(chapter 13), and the unintended consequences of
human activity (chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), which
can range from antibiotic resistance (chapter 5,
8, 9, 10), to endocrine disruption (chapter 3)
to air pollution (4) and climate change; each of
them further compounded by urbanizing and
population pressures (chapters 5, 6, 15)
This final chapter considers some possible
strategies and tools for promoting the integration
of biodiversity and health objectives, especially in
policies, programmes and practices at national
level. Building upon consultations among countries

organized by the CBD Secretariat and the World
Health Organization through an ongoing series
of workshops (Romanelli et al, 2014b; Box 1), the
chapter outlines some objectives for such strategies
and provides a list of preliminary list of priority
interventions at country level. The chapter then
considers a number of tools and approaches that
could support such strategies, including common
metrics and approaches, methods and indicators
for monitoring progress, and tools and approaches
for economic valuation. Building on the analysis in
Chapter 15, the chapter also considers approaches
for promoting behavioural change.
A discussion of needs for further research on the
interlinkages between health and biodiversity is
also provided.
Finally, the chapter discusses the integration of
biodiversity-health linkages in the post-2015
sustainable development agenda.

2. Strategic objectives for the
integration of biodiversity and
human health
The linkages between biodiversity and human
health presents a broad range of opportunities
for jointly protecting health and biodiversity,
and for advancing human well-being. More
speciﬁcally, health and biodiversity strategies

258 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Table 1 : Some key biodiversity-health linkages
Biodiversity and Health Topic

Health Sector Opportunity

Water

Direct responsibility:

• Water quantity

• Integrate ecosystem management considerations
into health policy

• Water quality

Indirect responsibility:

• Water supply

• Promote protection of ecosystems that supply
water and promote sustainable water use
Food and nutrition

Direct responsibility:

• Species, varieties and breeds including
domesticated and wild components

• Recognize and promote dietary diversity, food
cultures and their contribution to good nutrition

• Diversity of diet

• Recognize synergies between human health and
sustainable use of biodiversity (e.g. moderate
consumption of meat)

• Ecology of production systems
• Total demand on resources

Indirect responsibility:

• Sustainability of o take, harvesting and trade of
species used for food

• Promote sustainable production harvesting and
conservation of agrobiodiversity

• Changing status of species used for food
Diseases

Direct responsibility:

• Disease source and regulation services

• Integrate ecosystem management considerations
into health policy

• Ecosystem integrity and diversity

Indirect responsibility:
• Promote ecosystem integrity
Medicine

Direct responsibility:

• Traditional medicines

• Recognize contribution of genetic resources and
traditional knowledge to medicine

• Drug development (genetic resources and
traditional knowledge)

Indirect responsibility:

• Chemical/ pharmaceutical accumulation in
ecosystems

• Protect genetic resources and traditional
knowledge

• Sustainability of o take/harvesting and trade of
medicinal species

• Ensure bene t sharing

• Changing status of species used for medicine
Physical, mental and cultural dimensions of health

Direct responsibility:

• Physical and mental health

• Integrate value of nature into health policy

• Cultural/spiritual enrichment

Indirect responsibility:
• Promote protection of values, species and
ecosystems

Adaptation to climate change

Indirect responsibility:

• Ecosystem resilience

• Promote ecosystem resilience and conservation of
genetic resources

• Genetic resources ( options for adaptation)
• Shifting reliance to biodiversity with climate
change shocks

• Decrease vulnerability of people reliant on
important food and medicinal species which are
likely to be impacted by climate change

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 259

could be developed with the aim of ensuring
that the biodiversity and health linkages are
widely recognized, valued, and reflected in
national public health and biodiversity strategies,
and in the programs, plans, and strategies of
other relevant sectors, with the involvement
of local communities. The implementation of
such strategies could be a joint responsibility
of ministries of health, environment, and
other relevant ministries responsible for the
implementation of environmental health
programs and national biodiversity strategies
and action plans. Such strategies would need to
be tailored to the needs and priorities of particular
countries.
Such strategies might include the following
objectives (this volume; Romanelli et al. 2014b):
(b) Promoting the health beneﬁts provided by
biodiversity for food security and nutrition,
water supply, and other ecosystem services,
pharmaceuticals and traditional medicines,
mental health and physical and cultural
well-being. In turn, this provides a rationale

for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity as well as the fair and equitable
sharing of beneﬁts;
(c) Managing ecosystems to reduce the risks of
infectious diseases, including zoonotic and
vector-borne diseases, for example by avoiding
ecosystem degradation, preventing invasive
alien species, and limiting or controlling
human-wildlife contact;
(d) Addressing drivers of environmental change
(deforestation and other ecosystem loss and
degradation and chemical pollution) that harm
both biodiversity and human health, including
direct health impacts and those mediated by
biodiversity loss;
(e) Promoting lifestyles that might contribute
jointly to positive health and biodiversity
outcomes (e.g.: protecting traditional foods
and food cultures, promoting dietary diversity,
etc.)

Box 1: Workshops on the interlinkages between biodiversity and human health
In 2012, the WHO and the CBD embarked on an unprecedented joint collaborative endeavour aimed
at engaging the health and biodiversity sectors worldwide, with a particular focus on developing
countries, where concerted action is most urgently needed, in order to build capacity, and promote
action to jointly protect biodiversity and promote human health in the context of sustainable
development. The initial series of regional capacity-building workshops jointly convened by these
organizations, in collaboration with national and regional country partners, were held for the Americas
in Manaus, Brazil in September 2012 and for Africa in Maputo, Mozambique in April 2013. Country
representatives from the biodiversity and health sectors from a combined total of some 50 countries,
and a number of relevant organizations, regional experts and representatives of indigenous and local
communities, gathered to survey some of the critical linkages at the biodiversity-health nexus and
their relevance to the Strategic Plan and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets and to discuss the need to further
mainstream biodiversity in public health strategies and to incorporate public health considerations in
biodiversity strategies. Participants agreed upon an initial broad set of conclusions which have been
further revised and adapted in light of the issues identi ed throughout various chapters of this state of
knowledge review, in the broader context of the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011–2020 and the Post-2015 development agenda. These conclusions are re ected in sections 2
and 3 of this chapter as a broad framework for the integration of the biodiversity-health considerations
in local, national and regional strategies (see also Romanelli et al. 2014b) .

260 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

(f) Addressing the unintended negative impacts
of health interventions on biodiversity (e.g.:
antibiotic resistance, contamination from
pharmaceuticals), incorporating ecosystem
concerns into public health policies, and
(g) Addressing the unintended negative impacts
of biodiversity interventions on health (e.g.:
eﬀect of protected areas or hunting bans on
access to food, medicinal plants, etc.).
Promoting and maximizing the health beneﬁts
provided by biodiversity for food security and
nutrition, water supply, and other ecosystem
services, pharmaceuticals and traditional
medicines, mental health and physical and cultural
well-being provide a strong rationale for the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
and the fair and equitable sharing of beneﬁts.
Lifestyles (such as diets based on low-fat, diverse
and nutritious foods), practices and actions (such
as integrated land-use planning to maximize
health beneﬁts) will require educating, engaging
and mobilizing the public and the health sector
alike, including professional health associations as
potential, powerful advocates for the sustainable
management of ecosystems. It will also require
mobilizing organizations and individuals who
can articulate the linkage and the enormous value
proposition investments in sustainable ecosystem
management provide to the social and economic
health of communities.
In the sections that follow, some tools to achieve
these outcomes and additional areas for further
research are identiﬁed. These are not intended to be
comprehensive, but rather illustrative of the need
to further strengthen interdisciplinary knowledge
at the intersection of biodiversity and health.
A key element is adopting integrative approaches
such as the “One Health” approach or other
approaches that consider connections between
human, animal, and plant diseases and promotes
cross-disciplinary synergies for health and
biodiversity (see section 4 of this chapter). In
this context, the importance of preventive and
precautionary strategies for the management
of sustainable ecosystems to optimize health

outcomes cannot be overstated (PEDRR 2013).
For example, the chapters on disaster risk reduction
and climate change demonstrate the need for a
proactive approach to risk management by outlining
examples from a growing portfolio of ecosystembased adaptation and mitigation measures.
“Enhancing disaster preparedness for eﬀective
response” comprises the fourth priority under the
newly concluded Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction (2015–2030); well-managed
ecosystems and the myriad of services they can
provide will undoubtedly play an important role
in achieving this target and removing, or at least
reducing, the eﬀects of natural disaster events
on human life. The health status of populations
exposed to extreme events is equally central to the
overall success of the Sendai Framework, placing
the health sector at the centre of prevention and
mitigation strategies. The call for additional public
and private investment alone, which is the third
priority of the Sendai Framework, while essential,
will not be suﬃcient to strengthen health systems
or improve health outcomes.
Monitoring, evaluating and forecasting progress
toward the achievement of national, regional and
global targets at regular intervals against evidencebased indicators, including threshold values for
critical ecosystem services, such as the availability
and access to food, water and medicines is critical
as further discussed section 5 of this chapter.

3. Priority interventions for the
integration of biodiversity and
human health
Romanelli and others (2014b) identiﬁed as of
priority interventions to facilitate the integration
of biodiversity-health linkages in relevant polices,
programmes and practices at the national level.
As they noted, the implementation of these
interventions will be largely influenced by
individual country institutional and financial
capacities, and shaped by competing demands
faced by health and environment agencies,
with often limited resources. In that light, they
suggest that a pragmatic approach is needed,
focusing ﬁrst on those activities which require
little initial investment and which will gradually

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 261

develop partnerships and capacities to deliver
more eﬃciently on the shared agendas of health
and conservation actors. These would likely
include improved cross-sectoral collaboration
mechanisms, the sharing of existing data and
information, and the pooling of resources, where
feasible. This would help to move beyond the
conﬁnes of habitual institutional silos in which
health and environmental policies are often
developed, so interventions are no longer viewed
as added burdens imposed by one sector on the
other, but rather as important opportunities
for collaboration toward improved health and
conservation outcomes.

(e) Disseminate and share lessons learned,
knowledge, and national experiences related to
biodiversity–health linkages among countries and
with international, national, and local partners
to facilitate the development of tools aimed
at integrating biodiversity in health strategies
and reﬂecting public health considerations in
biodiversity strategies

The priority interventions identiﬁed include.

(g) Promote further applied research on
biodiversity–health linkages to identify countryspeciﬁc health risks, notably through disease
organisms or ill-health triggers that result from
ecosystem degradation and address local health
adaptation needs and solutions. Research should
also contribute to strengthening inter-country
and regional research collaboration to address
knowledge gaps and to incorporate social and
cultural perspectives as well as traditional and
religious values that serve to promote health and
protect biodiversity

(a) Encourage the development of new and existing
tools such as environmental impact assessments,
strategic environmental assessments, risk
assessments, and health impact assessments that
consider health-biodiversity linkages to manage
future risks and safeguard ecosystem functioning
while ensuring that social costs, including health
impacts, associated with new measures and
strategies do not outweigh potential beneﬁts
(b) Strengthen core national capacities that enable
health systems to prepare for and eﬀectively
respond to public health threats resulting from
ecosystem degradation and undertake cooperative
actions toward capacity-building that promote
the training of professionals in the health and
biodiversity sectors, as well as indigenous and
local communities
(c) Promote research, development, and
cooperation in traditional medicine in compliance
with national priorities and international
legal instruments, including those concerning
traditional knowledge and the rights of indigenous
peoples, as appropriate
(d) Promote the exchange of information,
experiences, and best practices to support the
development of national and regional biodiversity
and health strategies, and integrated tools of
territorial planning

(f) Carry out awareness raising activities and
develop education programs on the importance
of health–biodiversity linkages at various levels,
so as to enhance support for policies and their
implementation

(h) Facilitate implementation of integrated
essential public health and biodiversity-related
interventions for the management of both
short and long-term health risks resulting from
biodiversity loss and unsustainable practices;
(i) Facilitate implementation of integrated
environment and health surveillance to support
timely and evidence-based decisions for the
eﬀective identiﬁcation and management of short
and long-term risks to human health posed by
ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss by
forecasting and preventing increases in related
ill-health and disease
(j) Strengthen and operationalize the health
components of disaster-risk reduction plans
to prevent casualties resulting from the health
consequences of ecosystem degradation
(k) Strengthen international and regional
partnerships, joint work programs, and

262 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

intersectoral collaboration on biodiversity–health
linkages.

4. Towards the development of
common metrics and approaches
The integration of biodiversity and human
health can be facilitated by the use of common
metrics and frameworks. Conventional measures
of health are often too limited in focus to
adequately encompass the multiple health
beneﬁts from biodiversity (Corvalan et al. 2005).
Notwithstanding the broad WHO deﬁnition of
health described in Chapter 2 of this volume,
traditional measures of health, such as disability
adjusted life years (DALYs) and burden of disease,
tend to have a more narrow focus on morbidity,
mortality, and disability, and fail to capture the
full breadth of the complex linkages between
biodiversity and health, including social and
determinants and cultural underpinnings (E.g.
Talbot and Verrinder 2009; see also the chapters
on mental health and traditional medicine in this
volume). A more holistic approach is necessary.
Examples of such tools on the human health
side include environmental hazard or risk factor
analyses, tools aimed at the identiﬁcation (and
reduction) of health disparities and inequities,
identifying environmental and socio-economic
determinants of disease, and conducting
health impact assessments. Complementary
conservation approaches include landscape
and seascape change modelling, vulnerability
and adaptation assessments, integrated health
and environmental assessments and ecosystem
service analyses. Valuation approaches, when
being used in conjunction with, or being based
on, tools and methods that further contribute to
our understanding of ecosystem functioning and
human health linkages, can also be useful tools
for the assessment of beneﬁts and trade-oﬀs of
diﬀerent policy scenarios. Examples of such tools
on the human health side include environmental
hazard or risk factor analyses, tools aimed at the
identiﬁcation (and reduction) of health disparities
and inequities, identifying environmental
and socio-economic determinants of disease,
and conducting health impact assessments.

Complementary conservation approaches include
landscape and seascape change modelling,
vulnerability and adaptation assessments,
integrated health and environmental assessments
and ecosystem service analyses. Valuation
approaches, when being used in conjunction with,
or being based on, tools and methods that further
contribute to our understanding of ecosystem
functioning and human health linkages, can also
be useful tools for the assessment of beneﬁts and
trade-oﬀs of diﬀerent policy scenarios.
Measuring the health eﬀects of ecosystem change
by considering established “exposure” threshold
values can help to highlight biodiversity-healthdevelopment linkages. Mechanisms linking
ecosystem change to health eﬀects are varied.
For many sub-fields, exposure thresholds or
standards have been scientiﬁcally established that
serve as trigger points for taking action to avoid
or minimize disease or disability. For example,
air quality standards exist for particle pollution,
WHO has established minimum quantities of per
capita water required to meet basic needs, and
thresholds for food security deﬁne the quantity of
food required to meet individual daily nutritional
needs. Measuring the health eﬀects of ecosystem
change relative to established threshold values
highlights how such change constitutes exposure –
an important principle linking cause and disease
or other health eﬀects – and encourages action if
thresholds are exceeded.
Given the complexity and heterogeneity
of the tools available to assess health and
biodiversity linkages, complementary crosssectoral approaches require the development of
a common evidence base across the health and
conservation sectors. These can extend from the
development of standardized measures in the
integration of systematic assessment processes
(including environmental impact assessments,
strategic environmental assessments, health
impact assessments and risk or strategic
assessments), to more systematic reviews of
research ﬁndings, standardized data collection
forms and computerized modelling programs,
and the systemic consideration of multiple health
impacts in policy evaluation and assessment. The

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 263

integration of these tools in the development of a
common framework should consider the healthbiodiversity linkages – including those described
throughout this volume  – to manage future
risks and safeguard ecosystem functioning while
ensuring that social costs, associated with new
measures and strategies, do not outweigh potential
benefits. The development of precautionary
policies and safe minimum standards that place a
value on ecosystem services to health, and make
positive use of linkages between biodiversity and
health is critical to this endeavour. These should
be considered prior to any analysis of trade-oﬀs.
In practical terms, for example, policy-makers
and researchers could prioritize measures such
as integrated disease surveillance in wildlife,
livestock and human populations, as a costeﬀective measure to promote early detection

and avoid the much greater damage and costs of
disease outbreaks (see also chapter 7).
Progress toward the development of a common
framework will thus require more systematic
collaboration across disciplines and sectors, with
greater attention being paid to “translating” the
meaning of key metrics to increase their shared
relevance for the health and biodiversity sectors.
Similarly, frameworks provide a conceptual
structure to build on for research, demonstration
projects, policy and other purposes. Embracing a
common framework that aims to maximize the
health of ecosystems and humans both could
help the diﬀerent disciplines and sectors work
more collaboratively. As introduced in Chapter 2
of this volume, the conceptual framework of the
Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),
building upon that articulated in the Millennium

ǡǤǢǰǭǠɻ The IPBES Conceptual Framework

Source: Diaz et al 2015a.

264 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Ecosystem Assessment, is a framework that links
biodiversity to human well-being, considering also
institutions and drivers of change (See Figure 1).
Fig.1 In the central panel, boxes and arrows
denote the elements of nature and society that
are at the main focus of the IPBES. In each of
the boxes, the headlines in black are inclusive
categories that should be intelligible and relevant
to all stakeholders involved in IPBES and embrace
the categories of western science (in green) and
equivalent or similar categories according to
other knowledge systems (in blue). The blue and
green categories mentioned here are illustrative.
Solid arrows in the main panel denote inﬂuence
between elements; the dotted arrows denote links
that are acknowledged as important, but are not
the main focus of the Platform. The thick, coloured
arrows below and to the right of the central
panel indicate that the interactions between
the elements change over time (horizontal
bottom arrow) and occur at various scales in
space (vertical arrow). Interactions across scales,
including cross-scale mismatches, occur often. The
vertical lines to the right of the spatial scale arrow
indicate that, although IPBES assessments will
be at the supranational – subregional to global –
geographical scales (scope), they will in part build
on properties and relationships acting at ﬁner –
national and subnational  – scales (resolution,
in the sense of minimum discernible unit). The
resolution line does not extend all the way to the
global level because, due to the heterogeneous
and spatially aggregated nature of biodiversity,
even the broadest global assessments will be
most useful if they retain ﬁner resolution. This
ﬁgure is a simpliﬁed version of that adopted
by the Second Plenary of IPBES; it retains all
its essential elements but some of the detailed
wording explaining each of the elements has
been eliminated within the boxes to improve
readability. A full description of all elements and
linkages in the conceptual framework, together
with examples, can be found in Diaz et al. (2015b).

5: Keeping tabs: The need for
monitoring and accountability for
evidence-based indicators at the
intersection of biodiversity and
health
Identifying ecosystems critical for the delivery
of human health beneﬁts and evaluating key
socio-economic variables that aﬀect access to
and delivery of associated goods and services to
communities, particularly vulnerable populations,
is an instrumental step towards the identiﬁcation
of appropriate policy measures and strategies.
However, the ongoing objective evaluation of
those strategies once measures are in place, is
equally essential.
Monitoring, evaluating and forecasting progress
toward the achievement of national, regional and
global targets at regular intervals against evidencebased indicators, including threshold values for
critical ecosystem services, such as the availability
and access to food, water and medicines will
be essential to the effective implementation
of strategies. To be eﬀective, monitoring and
evaluation will require considerable strengthening
through more innovative and integrated
approaches. These could include, for example,
the development of robust, cross-cutting
indicators that jointly address human health and
environmental considerations (see, for example,
Dora et al. 2014; Pelletier et al. 2014). Further
guidance for the establishment of national
development plans that simultaneously encourage
cross-sectoral partnerships and stakeholder
engagement are also critical to strengthening and
encouraging more innovative monitoring and
evaluation approaches.
Each of the elements identified above must
be supported by the development of robust
indicators. Many indicators used in biodiversity
conservation and environmental management can
prove useful to health impact assessments, either
to help in the identiﬁcation of contributing factors
to existing health problems, or areas where health
risks or opportunities may arise.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 265

Drawing on the ﬁndings discussed throughout
this volume, these indicators may include
parameters of water quality; the extent, quality
and distribution of important habitats; wildlife
population movements; animal and plant health
status; and various indicators of biodiversity loss.
Similarly, in some circumstances the indicators
used by the health community (nutritional
status and availability, births, deaths, morbidity,
occurrence of speciﬁc diseases, etc.) may help to
bring speciﬁc ecological issues into focus or help
identify areas in which conservation measures
need to be assessed, strengthened or revised. The
same holds true for the development sector, since
the delivery of ecosystem services are supported
by biodiversity. Inter-disciplinary partnerships
to identify existing indicators which can be used
directly or modiﬁed to address cross-cutting issues
are an important element of capacity building for
the ecosystem approach, and help to promote
co-operation. Examples of cross-cutting indicators
which might be considered are provided in Table 2
below.

6. Assessing the economic value
of biodiversity and health:
EHQHƩWVDQGOLPLWDWLRQV
Providing estimated economic values for an
ecosystem service can be useful for internalizing
that value and guiding decision-making and more
integrated policy analysis. If used eﬀectively, and
in conjunction with other tools, some valuation
approaches can help us reconsider our relationship
with the natural environment, alerting us to the
consequences of our choices and behaviour for the
environment and human health. Translating the
value of natural resources and costs associated
with conservation into economic terms can
promote more equitable, eﬀective and eﬃcient
conservation practices, help to identify more
eﬃcient means of delivering ecosystem services,
identify more cost-effective alternatives, and
allow for a more thorough assessment of tradeoﬀs (TEEB 2010). Signiﬁcantly, some aspects of
ecosystem functioning such as ecological resilience
cannot be fully captured in quantitative valuations.
However, in most cases, economic values can be

presented as complementary information, thus
contributing to the overall calculation.
Valuation approaches linking ecosystem
functioning and health that support decisions
about resource allocation may appeal to a variety
of stakeholders, including many of those in the
public health and conservation sectors. Many tools
for monetary valuation of ecosystem services have
been developed in recent decades (for a recent
review see e.g. Brouwer et al. 2013; for diﬀerent
approaches see also see also Gómez-Baggethun
et al. 2014; Nelson et al. 2009; Brauman et al.
2007; Costanza et al 2006; Nunes et al. 2001).
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB), a global multidisciplinary initiative that
seeks to mainstream the value of biodiversity
and ecosystem services, has been particularly
successful in drawing attention to the global
economic beneﬁts associated with biodiversity
conservation and the growing ﬁnancial ecological
and human burden associated with its loss (http://
www.teebweb.org) (MacDonald and Corson 2012).
People rely on a range of ecosystem services to
sustain livelihoods, health, and well-being, of
which only a subset can be reﬂected in economic
evaluations in monetary terms; still fewer can be
addressed through market-based instruments.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB) follows a tiered approach in analyzing
and structuring valuation, including: societal
recognition of values; demonstration value in
economic terms where possible; and in some cases,
using market-based mechanisms to capture value.
The TEEB initiative calls for the internalization
and assessment of values of biodiversity and
ecosystem services where it can practically
and appropriately be carried out, based on the
recognition that it is unacceptable “…to permit
the continued absence of value to seep further into
human consciousness and behaviour, as an eﬀective
‘zero’ price, thus continuing the distortions that drive
false trade-oﬀs and the self-destructiveness that has
traditionally marked our relationship with nature”
(TEEB 2010:12).
The approach also acknowledges several of the
limitations, risks and complexities involved in

266 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Table 2: Examples of cross-cutting indicatorsƸ
Issue

Cross-cutting indicators

Water and air quality

• Biological/health hazards of source water from di erent sectors (e.g. agriculture; mining; energy
development)
• Chemical integrity of source water (e.g. pesticides, endocrine disrupting compounds, and harmful
algal blooms (cyanotoxins).
• Shifts in lychen species (as an indicator for air quality)

Food security,
nutrition, and
noncommunicable
diseases

• Nutritional status (e.g. type and prevalence of nutrient de ciencies)
• Food species diversity
• Status of unmanaged agrobiodiversity (e.g. pollinators, pests, predators)
• Time spent / distance travelled accessing foods
• Income and dietary intake from traditional foods, including wild foods
• Land used for producing traditional foods
• Prevalence of malnutrition / diet-related non-communicable disease
• Food yields from various resources (e.g. crops, sh/aquaculture, hunting)
• Outbreaks of food-borne disease
• Land use change (e.g. % area, pace of change, intensi cation)
• Use of agrobiodiversity in healthcare interventions (e.g. intervention type, species used)

Infectious diseases

• Areas of intact habitat in high risk areas
• Status of wildlife populations (distribution, movement, abundance, diversity, conservation status)
• Outbreaks of zoonotic, water-borne, vector-borne and food-borne disease (frequency,
distribution, morbidity, mortality)
• Outbreaks of human / wildlife / livestock / plant disease
• Water availability, vulnerability and quality
• Land use change (e.g. % area, pace of change, intensi cation)
• Outbreaks of infectious human/wildlife/livestock disease

Medicinal resources

• Use of biodiversity for primary medicinal resources (e.g. % of total medicinal use, % income
derived from sale of traditional medicines)
• Status of key species and related habitats
• indigenous population indicators – movements, density, births, morbidity and mortality

Disaster risk and
climate change

• Areas of intact habitat in high risk areas
• Encroachment and degradation (e.g. wetland reclamation, deforestation, urban sprawl)
• Population density in high risk areas
• Dependence of population on local ecosystems for food / medicine / income (e.g. % of total
population, income derived from ecosystems etc)
• Area of land experiencing erosion, deforestation, drought, deserti cation
• Frequency and severity of disasters
• Population displaced by disasters, and degree / pace of return
• Prevalence of disease after disasters
• Land use change (% area, pace of change, intensi cation)
• Indicators of climate adaptation and mitigation measures implemented by other sectors on
biodiversity and human health

¹ Adapted from COHAB Initiative, unpublished.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 267

economic valuation, covers diﬀerent types of value
appreciation, and includes various categories of
response at the level of public policies, voluntary
mechanisms and markets (Box 1).
Capturing the full range of values associated
with biodiversity loss, including socio-cultural
dimensions, requires that economic valuation tools
are complemented with non-monetary valuation
methods and planning tools based on various (crosssectoral) criteria that help to diﬀerentiate beneﬁts

and trade-oﬀs. The development of frameworks of
this kind involve synthesizing the abundant but
often scattered body of literature that analyses nonmonetary values of biodiversity, and articulating
it into ecosystem service concepts, methods, and
classiﬁcations (Gómez-Baggethun and Muradian
2015; Kelemen et al. 2014; Christie et al. 2012;
Gimona and van der Horst 2007). TEEB is clearly
a useful framework that has been put to widespread
use around the globe, but further strengthening of
the health dimensions of valuation are also needed.

Box 1: The TEEB approach
Recognizing Value: Recognizing value in ecosystems, landscapes, species and other aspects of
biodiversity is a feature of all human societies, and is sometimes su cient to ensure conservation
and sustainable use. This may be the case especially where the spiritual or cultural values of nature
are strong. For example, protected areas such as national parks have historically been established
in response to a sense of collective heritage or patrimony, a perception of shared cultural or social
value being placed on treasured landscapes, charismatic species or natural wonders. Protective
legislation or voluntary agreements can be appropriate responses where biodiversity values are
generally recognized and accepted. In such circumstances, monetary valuation of biodiversity and
ecosystem services may be unnecessary, or even counterproductive if it is seen as contrary to
cultural norms or fails to re ect a plurality of values.
Demonstrating Value: Demonstrating value in economic terms is sometimes useful for policymakers
and others, in reaching decisions that consider the full costs and bene ts of a proposed use of
an ecosystem, rather than only costs or values that enter markets in the form of private goods.
Economic valuations of natural areas are a case in point. Examples include calculating the costs and
bene ts of conserving the ecosystem services provided by wetlands in treating human wastes and
controlling oods, compared to the cost of providing the same services by building water treatment
facilities or concrete ood defences. Valuation is best applied for assessing the consequences of
changes resulting from alternative management options, rather than attempting to estimate the
total value of ecosystems. Most valuation studies do not assess the full range of ecosystem services
and not all biodiversity values can be reliably estimated using existing methods. The identi cation
of all signi cant changes in ecosystem services is a necessary rst step even if all of them are not
monetized.
Capturing Value: This nal tier involves the introduction of mechanisms that incorporate the values
of ecosystems into decision-making, through incentives and price signals. This can include payments
for ecosystem services, reforming environmentally harmful subsidies, introducing tax breaks for
conservation, or creating new markets for sustainably produced goods and ecosystem services. It
needs to come along with reinforcing rights over natural resources and liability for environmental
damage. The challenge for decision makers is to assess when market-based solutions to biodiversity
loss are likely to be culturally acceptable, as well as e ective, e cient and equitable.
Source: TEEB, 2010

268 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

7. Shaping behaviour and
engaging communities for
transformational change

iii) Addressing the signiﬁcant gap in knowledge
on what works, how and why, in order to
develop evidence-based best practices that can
be scaled-up for sustainability.

Human behaviour is central to the biodiversityhuman health nexus: our actions, as producers
and consumers of energy, natural resources and
manufactured products, are prime determinants
of both the ability to conserve biodiversity and
to promote human health. Therefore, managing,
and beneﬁting from, the interlinkages between
biodiversity, ecosystems services and human
health increasingly demands broad-scale
interventions that eﬀectively and sustainably
inﬂuence human behaviour (Freya et al. 2010;
Fulton et al. 2011; The Lancet 2015).

Tackling these and other aspects of human
behaviour change can have far-reaching
implications for poverty alleviation, human health
and biodiversity conservation (Allegrante 2015;
Barrett et al. 2011). Each of these is relevant to
building a culture of health that is in line with social
and environmental objectives, including those
embedded in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011–2020 and its Aichi biodiversity targets, and
the emerging sustainable development goals.

The social sciences can assist us to motivate
choices consistent with health and biodiversity
objectives and to develop new approaches through,
inter alia, better understanding of behavioural
change, production and consumption patterns,
policy development, and the use of non-market
tools (CBD 2013a). Accordingly, the development
of work on values, institutions and behaviour is
needed (CBD 2013b; Duraiappah et al 2014).² It
has been argued that intervention eﬀorts that also
seek to modify the physical, social, political, and
economic environments in which people live and
make health and environment related decisions
can jointly deliver health, environmental and
social beneﬁts (e.g. Allegrande 2015 and references
therein; Pons-Vigués et al. 2014).³ Core elements
to promote behaviour change on a global scale
include:
i) Understanding the drivers of human
behaviour and the role of micro- and macrolevel processes (including political, social,
environmental and economic institutions and
structures) in mediating positive change;
ii) Recognizing that inﬂuencing human behaviour
can take many forms but that strategies should
be tailored to speciﬁc contexts and issues; and

Understanding the drivers of human behaviour
requires moving beyond rational individualistic
behaviour models in order to appreciate the
complexities of daily life, social and economic
incentives for change, and actual processes of
change (Hargreaves 2011; Pons-Vigués et al.
2014). Social, cultural and psychological factors
interact in complex ways with broader economic,
political and environmental processes (Marmot et
al. 2008; Waylen et al. 2010). Designing eﬀective
and sustainable behaviour change interventions
also demands that we account for the perceptions,
needs, capacities, heterogeneity and constraints
of communities. Engaging with human behaviour
change also involves understanding complexity at
diﬀerent scales, which requires multi-disciplinary
approaches. In addition to the need to further
strengthen the scientiﬁc base of a broad range
of issues at the intersect of biodiversity and
health, there is also a need for policymakers
and practitioners to draw deeply from the social
sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology,
political science and other ﬁelds) in order to
inform strategies (Glanz and Bishop 2010).
Moreover, the traditional values of indigenous
and local communities can sometimes provide
critical foundations for positive behaviour change;
recognizing these values and working with these
groups to develop more sustainable production

² UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/INF/1
³ The eﬀectiveness of such approaches in addressing ethical considerations or reducing health disparities has also been
questioned (Lieberman et al. 2013).

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 269

and consumption patterns is essential (Kuhnlein
et al. 2013).⁴
In addition, the importance of behavioural change
in the private and business sectors is also critical
to achieving truly sustainable development, as
many of the goals and targets at the biodiversity
and human health nexus require encouraging the
private sector to adopt more sustainable practices
(e.g. supply chain management).
With reference to any particular set of objectives,
behaviour change includes efforts (such as
modifying institutional or social structures)
to reduce behaviours that are negative to the
objectives, promote behaviours that are positive,
and increase structural determinants so as to
foster “nurturing environments” (Biglan et al.
2012). Interventions can be very broadly divided
into top-down and bottom-up approaches. These
can take many forms and make use of diﬀerent
strategies, ranging from media campaigns,
promoting the adoption of speciﬁc technologies,
fostering compliance and/or community dialogue
on regulatory policies and legislative reforms,
strengthening community action, building local
resilience, and many others (Gaventa and Barrett
2012). Whatever the approach, it is important that
interventions be tailored to local, social, cultural,
economic, political and environmental contexts
in order that strategies consider local constraints,
values and incentives for change (Wakeﬁeld et
al. 2010; Netto et al. 2010). However, it is not
enough that behaviour change programmes be
culturally-acceptable; they also need to be based
on a compelling rationale for change (see PankerBrick et al. (2006) for malaria prevention; Moon
and Cocklin (2013) for biodiversity conservation;
Sunderlin (2006) for forest conservation; Lewis et
al. (2011) for sustainable agriculture; Newson et
al. (2013) for nutrition; and Vaughan et al. (2013)
for safe drinking water).
Many large-scale programmes for behavioural
change are often poorly implemented and rely
solely on passive information dissemination that

excludes suﬃcient recognition of related structural
barriers (political, social and environmental) and
of eﬀorts to address them (Lieberman et al. 2013;
Khun and Manderson, 2007). Strategies for the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
including through the CBD, commonly focus
on promoting changes in awareness, with the
assumption that changes in these indicators will
precede behaviour change. Unfortunately, as noted
by Verissimo (2013), this assumption is generally
wrong (McKenzie-Mohr et al. 2011). The same can
be said of interventions in the health sector which
often focus on “downstream” drivers of health
(Freudenberg et al. 2015; WHO 2008; Marmot
et al. 2008; Freudenberg et al. 2015) rather than
“upstream” drivers such as biodiversity loss (WHO
2012) and individual behaviour modification
strategies rather than modifying the social,
political, economic and physical environments in
which people live (Golden and Earp 2012; PonsVigués et al. 2014).
There are a variety of innovative techniques that
can be used to move beyond didactic methods in
order to engage with community participation,
skills development and the addressing of broader
social determinants (Trickett et al. 2011), such
as developing or reformulating technologies
as agents of behaviour change (Newson et al.
2013), social marketing (McKenzie-Mohr et al.
2011), school-based programmes that combine
education and environmental interventions (De
Bourdeaudhuij et al. 2011), and social mobilization
(Pretty et al. 2002). These examples show the
need for interventions to engage in innovation,
embracing both complexity, and long-term
visions of change, which in turn rely on suﬃcient
resource-mobilization.
The health sector can provide useful experience
in this regard. Social marketing has been widely
implemented in the health sector in countries
with promising results in addressing issues such
as obesity and smoking (French et al. 2009;
Shin et al. 2015; Gielen and Green 2015). Social
marketing consists of a suite of research and

⁴ For example, Kuhnlein et al. (2013) discuss how the Ainu people in the Saru River region, Japan, approached behaviour
change. In chapter 14 of that same volume detailed approaches and methods for behaviour change among indigenous
peoples are also discussed.

270 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

execution techniques; this is the application of
marketing concepts and techniques, informed
by the psychology of persuasion and inﬂuence
to create, communicate and deliver values to
influence behaviour and benefit the target
audience and society (Kotler & Lee 2011). It also
involves the development of non-traditional
partnerships. For example, as Shin and colleagues
(2015) demonstrate, developing unique crosssectoral partnerships by combining health sector
information with point-of-purchase strategies
can also encourage positive behaviours that
jointly promote healthy foods and make them
more accessible, including among low-income
populations which can, in turn, contribute to a
reduction in obesity rates.

8. Research needs
As the various chapters in this volume have
demonstrated, scientiﬁc data and information
from multiple sources and disciplines are not only
fundamental to our understanding of biodiversityhealth linkages but to the identiﬁcation of more
integrated public health, conservation and
development strategies. While this knowledge
is increasing rapidly, many data gaps persist and
much more sustained cross-disciplinary research
is needed to evaluate the full-breadth of these
complexities across geographical and temporal
scales (for recent discussion on existing research
gaps see also, for example, Myers et al. 2013;
Sandifer et al. 2015).
Further research is needed to elucidate some of
the potential knowledge gaps on linkages between
biodiversity and human health. For example, key
questions include:
a. What are the relationships between
biodiversity, biodiversity change and infectious
diseases? Speciﬁcally, what are the eﬀects of
species diversity, disturbance and humanwildlife contacts? What are the best metrics
by which to measure exposure?
b. What role does functional diversity play? How
might it modulate health outcomes? What are
the implications for spatial planning?

c. What are the linkages between biodiversity
(including biodiversity in the food production
system), dietary diversity and health? Is there
a relationship between dietary biodiversity
and the composition and diversity of the
human microbiome? What are good indicators
of dietary biodiversity? What are the linkages
between biodiversity in environment, the
human microbiome and health?
d. Beyond microbial inﬂuences on the immune
system, what are the actual mechanisms by
which exposure to biodiverse environments
influence health outcomes? What are the
implications for the design of buildings and
cities and access to “natural environments”?
What are the implications for the treatment of
some non-communicable diseases? What are
the cumulative health impacts of ecosystem
alteration? Who stands to beneﬁt?
e. Beyond provisioning services, which
components of coastal and marine ecosystems
lead to positive human health outcomes?
Does exposure to marine biodiversity have
measurable health beneﬁts?
f. How can biodiversity monitoring be better
integrated with or more accessible to the
public health and conservation communities?
These and many other questions merit further
attention from the scientific community in
order for science to more meaningfully inform
policy and decision-making. Ensuring that this
knowledge can also be accessed and shared by
decision-makers and practitioners, including
among and between low- and middle-income
countries, is not only instrumental to their widescale implementation but to the operationalization
of our shared commitment to achieve sustainable
development objectives (Sachs 2012).
The knowledge in question must not be conﬁned
to scientiﬁc data nor any single discipline, as
multiple sources of information are critical to
understanding the direct threats to and underlying
drivers of ill health and biodiversity loss. For
example, further research is needed to assess the
current proportion of species used for medicinal

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 271

and food purposes; qualitative data is also needed
to determine the proportion of this reliance on
natural resources that is based on needs and that
which is based on individual preferences. This
research can in turn be critical to developing sound
strategies aimed at sustainable use, management
and trade of biological resources essential to
human health and well-being.
Considering the regional heterogeneity of the
disease burden, and the variation of interactions
between variables at diﬀerent scales, analyses of
local burdens of disease (including the eventual
implementation of sustainable development goals
and targets in the post-2015 period) should be
complemented by strategies that also take local
variability into account (Murray et al. 2012).
Findings from the natural sciences should be
complemented by work from numerous other
disciplines, including the social sciences. The
latter are especially relevant to behavioural
change discussed in the previous section.
Analyses should also draw from local knowledge
ensuring, insofar as possible, full and eﬀective
participation of local and community-level
stakeholders. This routinized participation will
not only contribute to strengthening and/or
validating scientiﬁc knowledge, but also increase
opportunities for mutual learning, transparency,
coherence and collaboration. By its very deﬁnition,
mainstreaming (biodiversity considerations)
implies that the integration of biodiversity in
relevant public and global health policies and
strategies will require the involvement of various
stakeholders, at multiple scales.

9. Integrating biodiversity and
health into the sustainable
development agenda
“We reaﬃrm the intrinsic value of biological diversity, as
well as the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientiﬁc,
educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values
of biological diversity and its critical role in maintaining
ecosystems that provide essential services, which are
critical foundations for sustainable development and
human well-being. We recognize the severity of the global
loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems
and emphasize that these undermine global development,

aﬀecting food security and nutrition, the provision of and
access to water and the health of the rural poor and of people
worldwide, including present and future generations…”
(UN, The Future We Want, 2012).

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD, Rio+20), in its outcome
document, “The future we want”, agreed to
establish a process to develop sustainable
development goals (SDGs) as a key part of the
United Nations development agenda beyond
2015. Human health, biodiversity and ecosystems
were all prominently featured in the outcome
document which devoted numerous paragraphs
to calls for a comprehensive framework for a
healthy, sustainable and more equitable future
(UN, 2012). The need to eradicate poverty and to
further mainstream sustainable development at
all levels was recognized from the outset as was
“integrating economic, social and environmental
aspects and recognizing their interlinkages, so
as to achieve sustainable development in all its
dimensions” (UN 2012: paragraph 3).
The SDGs are intended to build upon the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
which were an expression of the international
community’s commitment to global development,
bringing social dimensions such as environment,
poverty, hunger, disease, education, and gender
equity to the forefront of the global policy agenda.
The MDGs and their associates 2015 targets were
largely successful in giving new prominence to
global public health issues aﬀecting poor and
vulnerable populations (Sachs 2012; Smith and
Taylor 2013). The health-related MDGs have
contributed to reinvigorating several multilateral
health institutions (although global engagement
could be much more eﬀective and coordinated);
galvanized collective action in the ﬁght against
HIV-AIDS, contributing to the expansion of
coverage with antiretroviral drugs (despite a large –
and ongoing- access gap); contributed to an overall
reduction of deaths from malaria, tuberculosis and
some other infectious diseases; contributed to an
increase in overall access to immunizations in
developing countries and reduced child mortality
(Carlsson and Nordström, 2012). The MDG
framework included the biodiversity target to

272 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

“reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a
signiﬁcant reduction in the rate of loss, 5 under
Goal 7 “ensuring environmental sustainability”.
The target originated from the “2010 biodiversity
target”, adopted, in 2002, by the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
and also by the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, as part of the Johannesburg Plan
of Implementation.
While biodiversity and environmental
sustainability more generally, were included in
the MDG framework, in the implementation of
the framework, the importance of biodiversity for
the achievement of the other MDGs (including the
high-proﬁle goals on poverty, food, and health) was
not suﬃciently recognized. Despite many actions
in support of biodiversity, the 2010 biodiversity
target was not fully met because the actions were
not taken on suﬃcient scale and because the
underlying drivers of loss were not addressed
significantly. In the post-2015 development
agenda, biodiversity needs to be better integrated
into broader development objectives (CBD 2013a).
In line with the mandate from Rio+20, United
Nations General Assembly established an Open
Working Group on Sustainable Development
Goals and tasked it to prepare a proposal for the
SDGs. The Group has proposed 17 goals (see
Table 3). The SDGs are due to be ﬁnalized and
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
in September 2015.
While one of the proposed goals is focussed
speciﬁcally on human health (Table 3) others also
address important and closely-related components
of human well-being including the eradication of
poverty, food security and nutrition, availability
of water and sanitation, and access to modern
energy. Biodiversity is related to each of these
components and these intersections have been
demonstrated at length throughout this volume.
Biodiversity is addressed explicitly in two of
the proposed goals and in several sub-targets
including those related to food and water. The
proposed goals also recognize the importance of
sustainable consumption and production, as well
as the importance of gender equality and equity.

Indeed, the sustainable development framework
must not only acknowledge the role of biodiversity
for its contribution to development, but also
provide the enabling conditions for its conservation
and sustainable use by promoting transformational
change in economies and societies. This not only
requires improving governance, considerably
strengthening institutional and cross-sectoral
collaboration at multiple scales, and coordinating
global responses, it also demands behavioural
change and building human capabilities through
access to education and health care (CBD 2013b).
Within the SDG process, unique opportunities
to advance the parallel goals of improving health
and other social dimensions of sustainable
development can be maximized by harnessing
opportunities that deliver joint beneﬁts, such
as measures and policies at the intersection of
nutrition, urban health, and noncommunicable
diseases (see chapter 6).
In line with the rationale and methods proposed
by Dora and colleagues (2014), progress toward
intersecting goals could be measured against
a robust set of target indicators that evaluate
health-related-risks modulated by biodiversityrelated measures. For example, target indicators
could be developed to evaluate progress of actions
taken based on sustainable food production and
agriculture polices (see chapter 5) that could not
only contribute to biodiversity protection and
ecosystem resilience but also improve human
nutrition (under SDG goal 2), and contribute to
reducing the burden of noncommunicable diseases
(under SDG goal 3). The SDG framework should
additionally provide for the enabling conditions
for human health and for the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity, and for the
underlying drivers of biodiversity loss and ill health
to be addressed (Chapter 2). This further implies
Goals for improved governance, and institutions,
at appropriate scales (from local to global), for
the management of risks and the negotiation of
trade-oﬀs among stakeholder groups, where they
are necessary.
As national policies and strategies continue to
develop, the ongoing evaluation of synergistic and

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 273

Table 3Ƽ: Summary of the sustainable development goals and targets proposed by the
open working group on sustainable development goals, and how biodiversity, and elePHQWVRIWKH6WUDWHJLF3ODQIRU%LRGLYHUVLW\ŘDUHDGGUHVVHGE\WKHP
The proposed sustainable development goals
(SDGs)

Biodiversity addressed in targets
Directly

End poverty in all its forms everywhere
End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture

Indirectly
Targets 1.4; 1.5; 1.a; 1.b

Targets 2.4; 2.5

Targets 2.1; 2.3; 2.a; 2.b

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all
at all ages

Targets 3.3; 3.4; 3.8; 3.9; 3.b;
3.d

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education
and promote life-long learning opportunities for all

Targets 4.5; 4.7

Achieve gender equality and empower all women
and girls

Targets 5.1; 5.5; 5.a; 5.c

Ensure availability and sustainable management of
water and sanitation for all

Target 6.6

Ensure access to a ordable, reliable, sustainable,
and modern energy for all
Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable
economic growth, full and productive employment
and decent work for all

Targets 6.1; 6.3; 6.4; 6.5; 6.a,
6.b
Target 7.a

Target 8.4

Targets 8.2; 8.3; 8.5; 8.9

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and
sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Targets 9.1; 9.4; 9.a; 9.b

Reduce inequality within and among countries

Targets 10.2–10.4; 10.a; 10.b

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe,
resilient and sustainable

Targets 11.4; 11.7;
11.a

Targets 11.1; 11.3; 11.5;
11.6; 11.b; 11.c

Ensure sustainable consumption and production
patterns

Targets 12.2; 12.4;
12.8

Targets 12.1; 12.5; 12.7;
12.a; 12.b

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts

Targets 13.1–13.3; 13.a; 13.b

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and
marine resources for sustainable development

Targets 14.1–14.6;
14.c

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of
terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,
combat deserti cation, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Targets 15.1–15.9;
15.a-15.c

Targets 14.7; 14.a; 14.b

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for
sustainable development, provide access to justice
for all and build e ective, accountable and inclusive
institutions at all levels

Targets 16.3; 16.4; 16.6;
16.7; 16.8; 16.10; 16a; 16.b

Strengthen the means of implementation and
revitalize the global partnership for sustainable
development

Targets 17.2–17.4;
17.6-17.11; 17.14–17.19

⁵ From Progress report on the process of integrating biodiversity into the post-2015 framework for sustainable development
(UNEP/CBD/COP/12/15)

274 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

antagonistic eﬀects of complementary sustainable
development goals and targets will be essential.
This includes sustainable development goals and
targets addressing health, food and freshwater
security, climate change and biodiversity loss.
Consistent evaluations of the long-term impacts
of trade-oﬀs are also needed. For example, the
short-term gains from intensive and unsustainable
agricultural production must be weighed against
costs to longer-term nutritional security; the
impacts of unsustainable agricultural practices
that may exacerbate climatic pressures may also
lead to greater food insecurity, particularly among
poor and vulnerable populations, by negatively
influencing food availability, accessibility,
utilization and sustainability.
As with other global policy developments,
the SDGs present many opportunities for the
realization of many of the key messages that
derive from this State of Knowledge Review. It will
be up to the biodiversity conservation and human
health communities to help shepherd related
national policies in the most rewarding directions.
Conclusion
Health is our most basic human right and one
of the most important indicators of sustainable
development. At the same time, as the chapters
throughout this volume have shown, the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
is imperative for the continued functioning of
ecosystems at all scales, and for the delivery
of ecosystem services that are essential for
human health. There are many opportunities
for synergistic approaches that promote both
biodiversity conservation and the health of
humans. In some cases there must be trade-oﬀs
among these objectives. Indeed, because of the
complexity of interactions among the components
of biodiversity at various tropical levels (including
parasites and symbionts), and across ecosystems
at various scales (from the planetary-scale biomes

to human-microbial interactions), positive,
negative and neutral links are quite likely to occur
simultaneously. An enhanced understanding of
health–biodiversity relationships will allow for
the adjustment of interventions in both sectors,
with a view to promoting human well-being over
the long-term.
Integrating linkages at the biodiversity–health
nexus in public health, conservation and
sustainability strategies will contribute not only
to improved health and biodiversity outcomes
but also to poverty alleviation, disaster-risk
reduction, and sustainable development more
broadly in line with the goals of the emerging post2015 development agenda (Horwitz et al. 2012;
Langlois et al. 2012; Romanelli, 2014b). Both the
SDGs and the objectives of the CBD Strategic
Plan 2011–2020 will require adequate levels of
resource commitment, citizen action, professional
development, capacity building, and other factors,
but what is most needed overall is a fundamental
shift in how western societies tend to view nature
as separate from human values and needs.
This volume has identiﬁed numerous linkages
between human health, ecosystem services,
and biodiversity. While there remain serious
gaps in knowledge and the need for deep policy
innovations persists, we can look with cautious
optimism toward the near future as our scientiﬁc
knowledge base increases and our understanding
of these complex linkages unfolds. In turn,
political pressure to move toward sophisticated,
integrated policy design will only increase as public
awareness and anxiety over the immense costs of
inaction grows. In this light, connecting the global
priorities of biodiversity and health is not only
prudent; it is a form of long-term insurance for
community resilience and the well-being of future
generations.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 275

References
Chapter 1 and 2
Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J.,
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., & Gren, Å. (2014). Reconnecting
cities to the biosphere: Stewardship of green infrastructure
and urban ecosystem services. Ambio, 43(4), 445–453.
Artner, A. & Siebert, R. (2006). The role of the social
sciences for biodiversity and ecosystem management.
Published in Jahrbuch der österreichischen Gesellschaft
für Agrarökonomie, 15, 129–141. Austrian Society for
agricultural economics. Available online: www.boku.ac.at/
oega
Balmford, A., and Bond, W. (2005). Trends in the state of
nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecology
Letters, 8(11), 1218–1234.
Balvanera, P., Pﬁsterer, A. B., Buchmann, N., He, J. S.,
Nakashizuka, T., Raffaelli, D., and Schmid, B. (2006).
Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity eﬀects on ecosystem
functioning and services. Ecology letters, 9(10), 1146–1156.
Balvanera, P., Siddique, I., Dee, L., Paquette, A., Isbell,
F., Gonzalez, A., et al. (2014). Linking Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services: Current Uncertainties and the Necessary
Next Steps. BioScience, 64(1), 49–57.
Barnosky, A. D., Hadly, E. A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E. L.,
Brown, J. H., Fortelius, M., et al. (2012). Approaching a state
shift in Earth/’s biosphere. Nature, 486(7401), 52–58.
Bonds, M. H., Dobson, A. P., and Keenan, D. C. (2012).
Disease ecology, biodiversity, and the latitudinal gradient in
income. PLoS biology, 10(12), e1001456.
Butchart, S. H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A.,
Scharlemann, J. P., Almond, R. E., et al. (2010). Global
biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328(5982),
1164–1168.
Campbell, A., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J. P.W., Bubb, P.,
Chenery, A., Coad, L., Dickson, B., Doswald, N., Khan, M.
S. I., Kershaw, F. and Rashid, M. (2009). Review of the
Literature on the Links between Biodiversity and Climate
Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical
Series No. 42, 124 pages.
Cardinale, B. J., Duﬀy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U.,
Perrings, C., Venail, P., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature, 486 (7401), 59–67.
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D.,
DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., et al. (2009). Science for managing
ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
106(5), 1305–1312.
Castaneda, I., Aguilar, C., & Rand, A. (2012). Measurement
and Reporting: Important Elements of Gender Mainstreaming
in Environmental Policies. Cornell JL & Pub. Pol’y, 22, 667.

Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat (CBD), (2014).
Global Biodiversity Outlook, fourth edition.
CBD, Secretariat. (2012). Cities and Biodiversity Outlook.
Montreal, 64 p.
CBD, Secretariat, (2010). Global Biodiversity Outlook, third
edition.
Chapin III, F. S., Carpenter, S. R., Koﬁnas, G. P., Folke, C.,
Abel, N., Clark, W. C., ... and Swanson, F. J. (2010). Ecosystem
stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing
planet. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(4), 241–249.
Chapin III, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L.,
Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., et al. (2000). Consequences
of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783), 234–242.
Chaves, L. F., Hamer, G. L., Walker, E. D., Brown, W. M.,
Ruiz, M. O., & Kitron, U. D. (2011). Climatic variability and
landscape heterogeneity impact urban mosquito diversity and
vector abundance and infection. Ecosphere, 2(6), art70
Chivian, E. and Bernstein, A. (Eds.) (2008). Sustaining life:
How human health depends on biodiversity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867),
23–23.
Daszak, P., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Bogich, T. L., Fernandez,
M., Epstein, J. H., Murray, K. A., and Hamilton, H. (2013).
Interdisciplinary approaches to understanding disease
emergence: The past, present, and future drivers of Nipah
virus emergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 110: 3681–3688.
Dearborn, D. C., & Kark, S. (2010). Motivations for conserving
urban biodiversity. Conservation biology, 24(2), 432–440.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M., &
Larigauderie, A. (2015). A Rosetta Stone for nature’s beneﬁts
to people. PLoS biology, 13(1).
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale,
M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Ariko, S.,
Baldi, A. Bartuska, A., et al. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual
Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
Duraiappah, A.K. & Rogers, D. 2011. The Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services:
opportunities for the social sciences. Innovation-the
European Journal of Social Science Research, 24, (3) 217–224
available from: ISI:000299230500002
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson,
J., Walker, B., and Norberg, J. (2003). Response diversity,
ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 1(9), 488–494.
Falkowski P.G., Fenchel T. & Delong E.F. (2008). – The
microbial engines that drive Earth’s biogeochemical cycles.
Science, 320 (5879), 1034–1039.

276 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective
for social–ecological systems analyses. Global environmental
change, 16(3), 253–267.
Gilbert, K., Hulst, N., & Rientjes, S. (2006). Social Science and
Biodiversity Why is it important? A Guide for Policy Makers.
European Centre for Nature Conservation.
Gutiérrez, N. L., Hilborn, R., & Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership,
social capital and incentives promote successful ﬁsheries.
Nature, 470(7334), 386–389.
Gutierrez-Montes, I., Emery, M., & Fernandez-Baca, E.
(2012). Why gender matters to ecological management
and poverty reduction. In Integrating Ecology and Poverty
Reduction (pp. 39–59). Springer New York.
Hahn, M.B., Gangnon, R.E., Barcellos, C., Asner, G.P., & Patz,
J.A. (2014). Inﬂuence of Deforestation, Logging, and Fire on
Malaria in the Brazilian Amazon. Plos One, 9, (1) available
from: ISI:000329460800085
Haines, A., Alleyne, G., Kickbusch, I., & Dora, C. (2012).
From the Earth Summit to Rio+ 20: integration of health and
sustainable development. The Lancet, 379(9832), 2189–2197.
Haines-Young, R., and Potschin, M. (2010). The links between
biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being.
Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis, 110–139.
Hooper, D. U., Adair, E. C., Cardinale, B. J., Byrnes, J. E.,
Hungate, B. A., Matulich, K. et al. (2012). A global synthesis
reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem
change. Nature, 486(7401), 105–108.

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime,
J. P., Hector, A., ... and Wardle, D. A. (2001). Biodiversity
and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future
challenges. Science, 294(5543), 804–808.
Lovasi, G. S., Quinn, J. W., Neckerman, K. M., Perzanowski,
M. S., and Rundle, A. (2008). Children living in areas with
more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community health, 62(7), 647–649.
Mace, G. M., Norris, K., and Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity
and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in
ecology and evolution, 27(1), 19–26.
Mace, G. M., Reyers, B., Alkemade, R., Biggs, R., Chapin III, F.
S., Cornell, S. E., Diaz, S., Jennings, S., Leadley, P., Mumby.,
et al. (2014). Approaches to deﬁning a planetary boundary
for biodiversity. Global Environmental Change, 28, 289–297.
Maclaurin, J., and Sterelny, K. (2008). What is biodiversity?.
University of Chicago Press.
Maes, J., Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M. B., and
Alkemade, R. (2012). Synergies and trade-oﬀs between
ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat
conservation status in Europe. Biological conservation, 155,
1–12.
Manfre, C., & Rubin, D. (2012). Integrating gender into
forestry research: A guide for CIFOR scientists and
programme administrators. CIFOR.
McCann, K. (2007). Protecting biostructure. Nature, 446
(7131), 29–29.

Hooper, D. U., Chapin Iii, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A.,
Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., ... and Wardle, D. A. (2005). Eﬀects of
biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current
knowledge. Ecological monographs, 75(1), 3–35.

McDonald, R.I., Kareiva P. and Forman, R.T.T. (2008). The
implications of current and future urbanization for global
protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biological
Conservation 141: 1695–1703.

Hough, R.L., Biodiversity and human health: evidence
for causality?, (2014). Biodiversity Conservation (2014)
23:267–288.

McMichael, A. J., and Beaglehole, R. (2000). The changing
global context of public health. The Lancet, 356(9228),
495–499.

Jiang, L., Pu, Z., and Nemergut, D. R. (2008). On the
importance of the negative selection eﬀect for the relationship
between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Oikos,
117(4), 488–493.

Mikkelson, G.M., Gonzalez, A., & Peterson, G.D. (2007).
Economic Inequality Predicts Biodiversity Loss. Plos One, 2,
(5) available from: ISI:000207445900004

Jones, K. E., Patel, N. G., Levy, M. A., Storeygard, A., Balk,
D., Gittleman, J. L., and Daszak, P. (2008). Global trends in
emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451(7181), 990–993.
Kremen, C. (2005). Managing ecosystem services: what do
we need to know about their ecology?. Ecology letters, 8(5),
468–479.
Laporta, G.Z., de Prado, P.I.K.L., Kraenkel, R.A., Coutinho,
R.M., & Sallum, M.A.M. 2013. Biodiversity Can Help Prevent
Malaria Outbreaks in Tropical Forests. Plos Neglected Tropical
Diseases, 7, (3) available from: ISI:000316943800052
Leadley, P., Proença, V., Fernández-Manjarrés, J., Pereira, H.
M., Alkemade, R., Biggs, et al. (2014). Interacting regionalscale regime shifts for biodiversity and ecosystem services.
BioScience, biu093.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005a):
Ecosystems and human well- being: synthesis, Island Press,
Washington DC, USA, 2005.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a): Ecosystems
and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Island Press,
Washington DC, USA, 2005.
Mitchell, R., and Popham, F. (2008). Eﬀect of exposure to
natural environment on health inequalities: an observational
population study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1655–1660.
Mora, C. & Zapata, F. A. (2013), “Anthropogenic footprints on
biodiversity,” In The Balance of Nature and Human Impact, K.
Rohde, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G., & Worm,
B. (2011). How many species are there on Earth and in the
ocean?. PLoS biology, 9(8), e1001127.

Levy, S. (2013). The Lyme Disease Debate Host Biodiversity
and Human Disease Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives,
121, (4) A120-A125.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 277

Mori, A. S., Furukawa, T., and Sasaki, T. (2013). Response
diversity determines the resilience of ecosystems to
environmental change. Biological Reviews, 88(2), 349–364.

Sarkar, S., and Margules, C. (2002). Operationalizing
biodiversity for conservation planning. Journal of biosciences,
27(4), 299–308.

Myers, S. S., Gaﬃkin, L., Golden, C. D., Ostfeld, R. S., Redford,
K. H., Ricketts, T. H., et al. (2013). Human health impacts of
ecosystem alteration. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 110(47), 18753–18760.

Schwartz, M. W., Brigham, C. A., Hoeksema, J. D., Lyons,
K. G., Mills, M. H., and Van Mantgem, P. J. (2000). Linking
biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for
conservation ecology. Oecologia, 122(3), 297–305.

Naeem, S., and Wright, J. P. (2003). Disentangling biodiversity
eﬀects on ecosystem functioning: deriving solutions to a
seemingly insurmountable problem. Ecology letters, 6(6),
567–579.

Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., and Reilly, M. K.
(2011). A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PloS
one, 6(8), e23777.

Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H.,
Cameron, D., et al. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem
services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production,
and tradeoﬀs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 7(1), 4–11.
Ostfeld, R.S. & Keesing, F. 2000. Biodiversity and disease
risk: The case of Lyme disease. Conservation Biology, 14, (3)
722–728.
Postel, S. L., and Thompson, B. H. (2005). Watershed
protection: Capturing the beneﬁts of nature’s water supply
services. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.
98–108). Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., Tengö, M., Bennett,
E. M., Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., ... and Pfeifer, L. (2010).
Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: Why is human
well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade?.
BioScience, 60(8), 576–589.
Reiss, J., Bridle, J. R., Montoya, J. M., & Woodward, G. (2009).
Emerging horizons in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
research. Trends in ecology & evolution, 24(9), 505–514.
Reiss, J., Bailey, R. A., Cássio, F., Woodward, G., & Pascoal,
C. (2010). Assessing the contribution of micro-organisms
and macrofauna to biodiversity-ecosystem functioning
relationships in freshwater microcosms. Advances in
Ecological Research, 43, 151–176.
Rockström, J., Steﬀen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin,
F. S., Lambin, E. F,. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.
Romanelli, C., Cooper, H. D., de Souza Diaz, B.F (2014a) The
integration of biodiversity into One Health. Revue Scientiﬁque
et Technique 33(2): 487–496.
Romanelli, C., Corvalan, C., Cooper, H. D., Manga, L., Maiero,
M., and Campbell-Lendrum, D. (2014b). From Manaus to
Maputo: Toward a Public Health and Biodiversity Framework.
EcoHealth, 11(3), 292–299.
Sala, O.E., Meyerson, L.A. and Parmesan, C. (2012 )
Biodiversity Change and Human Health: From Ecosystem
Services to Spread of disease. SCOPE/DIVERSiTAS
Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015).
Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem
services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities
to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem
Services, 12, 1–15.

Smit, B., and Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive
capacity and vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16(3),
282–292.
Spangenberg, J. H., and Settele, J. (2010). Precisely incorrect?
Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecological
Complexity, 7(3), 327–337.
Steﬀen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E.,
Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M. et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science,
1259855.
Steﬀen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaﬀney, O., & Ludwig,
C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great
Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2053019614564785.
Taylor, L. H., Latham, S. M., and Mark, E. J. (2001).
Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological
Sciences, 356(1411), 983–989.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB),
(2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
Ecological and Economic Foundation. Earthscan, Cambridge.
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., and Mosseler, A.
(2009). Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change.
In A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship
in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series (Vol. 43).
Thompson, R. M., Brose, U., Dunne, J. A., Hall Jr, R. O.,
Hladyz, S., Kitching, R. L., et al. (2012). Food webs: reconciling
the structure and function of biodiversity. Trends in ecology
and evolution, 27(12), 689–697.
Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., and
Siemann, E. (1997). The inﬂuence of functional diversity and
composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 277(5330),
1300–1302.
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten,
G. L., Burgess, N. D., ... & Visconti, P. (2014). A mid-term
analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets.
Science, 346(6206), 241–244.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme
(UN-Habitat) (2013) State Of The World’s Cities 2012/2013:
Prosperity of Cities. Routledge. Available from:
UNDP (2005). UN Millennium Project  – Investing in
Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium
Development Goals. London: Earthscan; 2005.
UNESCO 2013. World Social Science Report: Changing
Global Environments.

278 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

United Nations Task Team on Social Dimensions of Climate
Change 2011. The social dimensions of climate change: A
discussion draft.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Aﬀairs
(UN/DESA) Population Division, (2013). World Population
Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Press Release. 13 June 2013:
“World Population to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 with most
growth in developing regions, especially Africa”. Available
at: http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm

Chapter 3
Albright, T., T. Moorhouse, J. McNabb. 2004. “The Rise and
Fall of Water Hyacinth in Lake Victoria and the Kagera River
Basin, 1989–2001. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management
42:73.
Ashbolt, N.J., 2004. Microbial contamination of drinking
water and disease outcomes in developing regions. Toxicology
198.

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004).
Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(2), 5.

Balmford A. and Bond W. (2005) Trends in the state of nature
and their implications for human well-being. Ecology Letters,
8, 1218–1234.

Walter, H.S. 2003. Contested nature: Promoting international
biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-ﬁrst century.
Geographical Review, 93, (2) 275–277 available from:
ISI:000222838000010

Barros FAF. 1990. Ciência e tecnologia no processo de
desenvolvimento da região Amazônica. Brasília: CNPq, 548p.

Ward Thompson, C., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A.,
and Miller, D. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress
in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol
patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221–229.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2015). World health
statistics 2015. http://www.who.int/gho/publications/
world_health_statistics/2015/en/; ISBN 978 92 4 156488 5
WHO, (2014), Biodiversity. Available at: http://www.who.int/
globalchange/ecosystems/biodiversity/en/
WHO (2011). Gender, climate change and health Geneva,
World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2012). Our Planet, Our
Health, Our Future. Human Health and the Rio Conventions.
Discussion paper. Geneva: World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/reports/
health_rioconventions.pdf.
WHO (2010). Hidden cities: unmasking and overcoming
health inequities in urban settings. Technical Report. Centre
for Health Development, and United Nations Human
Settlements Programme Un-habitat.
WHO (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity
through action on the social determinants of health, Geneva.
WHO 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: health
synthesis: a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Carlos Corvalan, Simon Hales, Anthony McMichael et al.
Geneva, World Health Organization.
Woolley, H. (2003). Urban open spaces. Taylor and Francis.
Woolley, H., Rose, S., Carmona, M. and Freeman, J. (2004)
The Value of Public Space, How High Quality Parks and Public
Spaces Create Economic, Social and Environmental Value.
London: CABE Space.
Zhou, J., Deng, Y., Luo, F., He, Z., and Yang, Y. (2011).
Phylogenetic molecular ecological network of soil microbial
communities in response to elevated CO2. MBio, 2(4).

Batker, D., Torre, I., Costanza, R., Swedeen, P., Day, J.,
Boumans, R., Bagstad, K. (2010). Gaining Ground: Wetlands,
Hurricanes, and the Economy: The Value of Restoring
the Mississippi River Delta. Tacoma, Washington: Earth
Economics.
Bednar, A. J., Garbarino, J. R., Ranville, J. F., and T. R.
Wildeman (2002). Presence of organoarsenicals used in
cotton production in agricultural water and soil of the
southern United States. Journal of agricultural and food
chemistry, 50(25), 7340–7344.
Benedict, M. Q., R. S. Levine. (2007). Spread of the Tiger:
Global Risk of Invasion by the Mosquito Aedes albopictus.
The American Naturalist, 7(1), 76–85.
Binelli, A., Magni, S., Soave, C., Marazzi, F., Zuccato,
E., Castiglioni et al. (2014). The biofiltration process
by the bivalve D. polymorpha for the removal of some
pharmaceuticals and drugs of abuse from civil wastewaters.
Ecological Engineering, 71, 710–721.
Blumenfeld, S., Lu, C., Christophersen, T. and Coates, D.
(2009). Water, Wetlands and Forests. A Review of Ecological,
Economic and Policy Linkages. Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity and Secretariat of the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, Montreal and Gland. CBD Technical
Series No. 47.
Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). 18 Tropical montane cloud forest:
a unique hydrological case. Forests, Water and People in the
Humid Tropics: Past, Present and Future Hydrological Research
for Integrated Land and Water Management, 462.
Brüsch, W. and B. Nilsson (1993). Nitrate transformation
and water movement in a wetland area. Hydrobiologia, 251:
103–111.
Bullock A., Acreman, M.C. (2003) The role of wetlands in
the hydrological cycle. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
7,3: 75–86.
Buss, D. F.; Carlisle, D. M.; Chon, T. -S.; Culp, J.; Harding, J.
S.; Keizer-Vlek, H. E.; Robinson, W. A.; Strachan, S.; Thirion,
C. & Hughes, R. M. (2015). Stream biomonitoring using
macroinvertebrates around the globe: a comparison of largescale programs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
187: 1–21

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 279

Caliman, F. A., & Gavrilescu, M. (2009). Pharmaceuticals,
personal care products and endocrine disrupting agents in
the environment–a review. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water, 37(4–
5): 277–303.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Secretariat.
(2012). Report of the expert group on maintaining the ability
of biodiversity to continue to support the water cycle. UNEP/
CBD/COP/11/INF/2

Cardinale, B.J. 2011. “Biodiversity Improves Water Quality
Through Niche Partitioning.” Nature 472: 86–89.

Coetzee, J. A., Jones, R. W., & Hill, M. P. (2014). Water
hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae), reduces
benthic macroinvertebrate diversity in a protected subtropical
lake in South Africa. Biodiversity and conservation, 23(5),
1319–1330.

Cardinale, B. J., Duﬀy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U.,
Perrings, C., Venail, P., ... & Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity
loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59–67.
Carmichael, W. W. (2001). Health eﬀects of toxin-producing
cyanobacteria:“The CyanoHABs”. Human and ecological risk
assessment: An International Journal, 7(5) 1393–1407.
Carpenter, S. R., Stanley, E. H., & Vander Zanden, M. J. (2011).
State of the world’s freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical,
and biological changes. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 36, 75–99.
Carr, G. M., and Neary, J. P. (2008). Water quality for
ecosystem and human health. UNEP/Earthprint.
Cattaneo, M. G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C. Y.,
Rahman, M., Olson, C., ... and Carriere, Y. (2006). Farm-scale
evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity,
pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 103(20), 7571–7576.
Cazenave, J., Wunderlin, D. A., de los Angeles Bistoni, M.,
Amé, M. V., Krause, E., Pﬂugmacher, S., & Wiegand, C.
(2005). Uptake, tissue distribution and accumulation of
microcystin-RR in Corydoras paleatus, Jenynsia multidentata
and Odontesthes bonariensis: A ﬁeld and laboratory study.
Aquatic Toxicology, 75, 178–190.
Chapagain, A., Hoekstra, A., Savenije, H., Goutam, R. (2006)
The water footprint of cotton consumption: an assessment
of the impact of worldwide cotton products on the water
resources of the cotton producing countries. Ecological
Economics 60(1):186–203.
Charles, H. Dukes, J.S. (2007) Impacts of invasive species on
ecosystem services. In: Nentwig, W; ed. Biological invasions.
Ecol. Studies 193. New York: Springer; pp. 217–337.
Chen, J., He, D., & Cui, S. (2003). The response of river
water quality and quantity to the development of irrigated
agriculture in the last 4 decades in the Yellow River Basin,
China. Water Resources Research, 39(3).
Chorus, I., & Bartram, J. (1999). Toxic cyanobacteria in water:
A guide to their public health consequences, monitoring and
management. Published on behalf of UNESCO, WHO and
UNEP by Spon Press.
Coates, C., and Smith, M. (2012). Chapter 11: Natural
infrastructure solutions for water security. In R. Ardakanian&
D. Jaeger (Eds.), Water and the green economy (1 ed., Vol. 1,
pp. 167–181). Bonn, Germany: UNW-DPC.
Cohen, AN; Carlton, JT. (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in
a highly invaded estuary. Science 279(5350):555–558.

Coetzee, J. A., & Hill, M. P. (2012). The role of eutrophication
in the biological control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia
crassipes, in South Africa. BioControl, 57(2), 247–261.
Cosgrove, W. J., & Rijsberman, F. R. (2014). World water
vision: making water everybody’s business. Routledge.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso,
M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K. Naeem, S. O’Neill, R.V. Paruelo,
J. Raskin, R.G. Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. (1997). The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature 387: 253–260.
Dale, P. and Knight, J. (2008). Wetlands and mosquitoes: a
review. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16(4), 255–276.
Dale, P. and Connelly, R. (2012). Wetlands and human
health: an overview. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 20(3),
165–171.
Daniel, R.B. and J.W. Gilliam (1996). Sediment and chemical
load reduction by grass and riparian ﬁlters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J., 60, pp. 246–251.
DEFRA. 2007. The protection of waters against pollution from
agriculture: consultation on implementation of the Nitrates
Directive in England. London: DEFRA Publications. Available
at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/
waterquality/diffuse/nitrate/documents/consultationsupportdocs/consultation.pdf. Accessed on 14 August 2014.
DEFRA, (2004). Making space for water: Taking forward a
new Government strategy for ﬂood and coastal erosion risk
management in England. In: First Government Response
to the Autumn 2004 Making Space for Water Consultation
Exercise.
De Moor, F. C. (1994). Aspects of the life history of Simulium
chutteri and S. bovis (Diptera; Simuliidae) in relation to
changing environmental conditions in South African rivers.
Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung Limnologie 25,
1817–1821.
Diaz, R. J. (2001). Overview of hypoxia around the world.
Journal of environmental quality, 30(2), 275–281.
Diaz, R.J. and R. Rosenberg (2008). Spreading dead zones
and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, 321(5891),
926–929.
Döll, P., & Siebert, S. (2002). Global modeling of irrigation
water requirements. Water Resources Research, 38(4), 8–1.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Secretariat. (2014).
Global Biodiversity Outlook. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity.

280 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Drace, K.; Kiefer, A. M.; Veiga, M. M.; Williams, M. K.;
Ascari, B.; Knapper, K. A.; Logan, K. M.; Breslin, V. M.;
Skidmore, A.; Bolt, D. A.; Geist, G.; Reidy, L. & Cizdziel, J.
V. (2012). Mercury-free, small-scale artisanal gold mining in
Mozambique: utilization of magnets to isolate gold at clean
tech mine. Journal of Cleaner Production, 32: 88–95.
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata,
Z. I., Knowler, D. J., Lévêque, C., ... & Sullivan, C. A. (2006).
Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and
conservation challenges. Biological reviews, 81(2), 163–182.
Ellis, E.C, Goldewijk K.K, Siebert, S, Lightma, D, Ramankutty,
N, (2010). Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes,
1700–2000, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 589–606.
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2005). Source
apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into
the aquatic environment. EEA Report, 7 Oﬃce for Oﬃcial
Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.
ISBN 92–9167–777–9. 48 pp.
EPA (2008) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Eﬀects of
climate change for aquatic invasive species and implications for
management and research. National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/014. Available
from the National Technical Information Service, Springﬁeld,
VA, and online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
Erlanger, Tobias E., et al. “The Attributable Fraction
of the Lymphatic Filariasis Burden to Water Resource
Development and Management.” Report prepared for the
WHO commissioned study Burden of water-related vectorborne diseases: An analysis of the fraction attributable
to components of water resources development and
management.
Ervin, J., Sekhran, N., Dinu, A., Gidda, S., Vergeichik, M.,
& Mee, J. (2010). Protected Areas for the 21st Century:
Lessons from UNDP/GEF’s Portfolio. In New York: United
Nations Development Programme and Montreal: Convention on
Biological Diversity.
European Topic Centre on Water (2010). Climate Change
Impacts on Water Quality and Biodiversity: Background Report
for EEA European Environment State and Outlook. Prague.
Evers, B. N., Madsen, H., McKaye, K. M., & Stauﬀer Jr, J.
R. (2006). The schistosome intermediate host, Bulinus
nyassanus, is a ‘preferred’ food for the cichlid fish,
Trematocranus placodon, at Cape Maclear, Lake Malawi.
Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology, 100(1), 75–85.
Fenwick, A. (2006). Waterborne infectious diseases – could
they be consigned to history?. Science, 313(5790), 1077–1081.
Fearnside PM. 1999. Social Impacts of Brazil’s Tucuruí Dam.
Environmental Management 24(4): 485–495.
Fisher J. and Acreman C. (2004). Wetland nutrient removal: a
review of the evidence. Hydrology and earth System Sciences,
8 (4). 673–685.
Fleming, L.E., McDonough, N., Austen, M. Mee, L., Moore,
M., Hess, P., … Smalley, A., Oceans and Human Health: A
rising tide of challenges and opportunities for Europe, Marine
Environmental Research, Volume 99, August 2014, Pages
16–19.

Floyd, T; Williams, J. (2004) Impact of green crab (Carcinus
maenas L.) predation on a population of soft-shell clams (Mya
arenaria L.) in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. J of Shellﬁsh
Res 23(2):457–462.
Frei, A., Armstrong, R., Clark, M., Serreze, M. (2002) Catskill
Mountain Water Resources: Vulnerability, Hydroclimatology,
and Climate Change Sensitivity. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 92(2):203–224.
Freitas de Magalhães, V., Moraes Soares, R., & Azevedo,
S. M. (2001). Microcystin contamination in ﬁsh from the
Jacarepaguá Lagoon (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil): ecological
implication and human health risk. Toxicon, 39(7),
1077–1085.
Fuller, K., Shear, H. and Wittig, J. (1995). Great Lakes Atlas.
Great Lakes National Program Oﬃce, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 3rd Edition. Chicago, Ill. (USA).
Gardner, R. C., Barchiesi, S., Beltrame, C., Finlayson, C. M.,
Galewski, T., Harrison, I., ... & Walpole, M. (2015). State of the
World’s Wetlands and Their Services to People: A Compilation
of Recent Analyses.
Gerba, C. P., & Smith, J. E. (2005). Sources of pathogenic
microorganisms and their fate during land application of
wastes. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(1), 42–48.
Glandon, R.F., McNabb, P.C. and T. Batterson (1981). A
comparison of rain related phosphorous and nitrogen loading
from urban, wetland and agricultural sources. Water Res., 15,
pp. 881–892
Glantz, M.H. (1998). Creeping environmental problems in
the Aral Sea basin. In Kobori, I. And M.H. Glantz (Eds.),
Central Eurasian Water Crisis: Caspian, Aral and Dead Seas,
United Nations University Press, New York (1998).
Glenn, E. P., Lee, C., Felger, R., & Zengel, S. (1996). Eﬀects
of water management on the wetlands of the Colorado River
delta, Mexico. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1175–1186.
Goldschmidt, T., Witte, F., & Wanink, J. (1993). Cascading
eﬀects of the introduced Nile perch on the detritivorous/
phytoplanktivorous species in the sublittoral areas of Lake
Victoria. Conservation Biology, 7(3), 686–700.
Hacon S, Azevedo F. 2006. Plano de ação regional para
prevenção e controle da contaminação por mercúrio nos
Ecossistemas Amazônicos. Brasilia – DF – OTCA. p 8–46.
Hallegraeﬀ, G.M. (1998). “Transport of toxic dinoﬂagellates
via ships’ ballast water: Bioeconomic risk assessment and
eﬃcacy of possible ballast water management strategies”.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 168: 297–309
Hamilton, L. S. (1995). Mountain cloud forest conservation
and research: a synopsis. Mountain Research and Development,
259–266.
Hanna, D. E., Solomon, C. T., Poste, A. E., Buck, D. G., &
Chapman, L. J. (2014). A review of mercury concentrations
in freshwater fishes of Africa: Patterns and predictors.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 281

Heuer, H., Krögerrecklenfort, E., Wellington, E. M. H.,
Egan, S., Elsas, J. V., Overbeek, L., ... & Smalla, K. (2002).
Gentamicin resistance genes in environmental bacteria:
prevalence and transfer. FEMS Microbiology ecology, 42(2),
289–302.
Hey, D., Kostel, J., Crumpton, W., Mitsch, W., Scott, B. (2012).
The roles and beneﬁts of wetlands in managing reactive
nitrogen. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 67(2),
(47A- 54A).
Horwitz, P., Finlayson, M. and Weinstein, P. (2012).
Healthy wetlands, healthy people: a review of wetlands
and human health interactions. Ramsar Technical Report
No. 6. Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands,
Gland, Switzerland, & World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Hotez, P. J., & Kamath, A. (2009). Neglected tropical diseases
in sub-Saharan Africa: review of their prevalence, distribution,
and disease burden. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 3(8).
Ibelings B.W. and Chorus, I. (2007). Accumulation of
cyanobacterial toxins in freshwater ‘‘seafood’’ and its
consequences for public health: A review. Environmental
Pollution 150: 177- 192.
IWMI. (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture; Molden, D. Ed.; Earthscan and IWMI: London
2007.
Keesing. F., Holt R. D. and Ostfeld R. S. (2006). Eﬀects of
species diversity on disease risk. Ecology Letters 9: 485–498.
Kemper, N. (2008). Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and
terrestrial environment. Ecological indicators, 8(1), 1–13.
Kou, Y., Lu, X., Zhang, Z., Song, X., Cao, X. (2012). Nitrogen
retention and puriﬁcation eﬃciency for typical wetlands
in West Jilin: eﬀects based on microcosm experiment and
phosphorus increase. Journal of Food, Agriculture and
Environment, 10 (2), 1035–1039.
Lapworth, D. J., Baran, N., Stuart, M. E., & Ward, R. S. (2012).
Emerging organic contaminants in groundwater: a review of
sources, fate and occurrence. Environmental pollution, 163,
287–303.
Lee, K.H., Isenhart, T.M. and R.C. Schultz (2003). Sediment
and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian
buﬀer. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 58(1), 1–8.
Lobell, D. B., Cassman, K. G., & Field, C. B. (2009). Crop
yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 179.
LoGiudice, K. Ostfeld, R.S., Schmidt, K.A. and Keesing, F.
(2003). The ecology of infectious disease: eﬀects of host
diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100: 567–571.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005a).
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005b). Mountain
Systems: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment- Chapter 24.
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and
Trends. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Marchand, C., Fernandez, J. M., Moreton, B., Landi, L.,
Lallier-Vergès, E., & The partitioning of transitional metals
(Fe, Mn, Ni, Cr) in mangrove sediments downstream of a
ferralitized ultramaﬁc watershed (New Caledonia). Chemical
Geology, 300–301(0), 70–80.
Mazepova, G.F. (1998). The role of copepods in the Baikal
ecosystem.Journal of Marine Systems, 15 (1–4), 113–120.
McGeoch, Melodie A, S. H. M. Butchart, D. Spear, E. Marais,
E. J. Kleynhans, A. Symes, J. Chanson and M. Hoﬀmann.
2010 “Global indicators of biological invasion: species
numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses.” Diversity
and Distributions 16: 95–108.
McNeely, J. A. (2001). An introduction to human dimensions
of invasive alien species. The Great Reshuffling: Human
Dimensions of Invasive Alien Species. IUCN Publishers, Gland,
Switzerland, 5–22.
Micklin, P. (2007). The Aral sea disaster. Annu. Rev. Earth
Planet. Sci., 35, 47–72.
Myers, S. S., Gaﬃkin, L., Golden, C. D., Ostfeld, R. S., Redford,
K. H., Ricketts, T. H., Turner, W.R., and Osofsky, S. A. (2013).
Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(47), 18753–18760.
Myers, S. S., & Patz, J. A. (2009). Emerging Threats to Human
Health from Global Environmental Change. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour, 34, 223–52.
Molyneux, D., Ostfeld R.S., Bernstein, A., and Chivian, E.
(2008). Ecosystem disturbance, biodiversity loss, and human
infectious disease. In Sustaining Life: How Human Health
Depends on Biodiversity, ed. E Chivian, A Bernstein, pp. 287–
323. Oxford/ New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Nakamura, K., Nakayama, H., Hideshima, Y., Ishida, T.,
Ogikibo, J. and S. Moriwaki (2001). Drainage ﬂows in grass
and forest slope lands. Proceedings of the JSIRDE Annual
Meeting, pp. 44–45.
Naiman, R. J., & Décamps, H. (1997). The ecology of
interfaces: riparian zones. Annual review of Ecology and
Systematics, 621–658.
Newell, R.I.E. (2004). Ecosystem influences of natural
and cultivated populations of suspension-feeding bivalve
molluscs: a review. Journal of Shellﬁsh Research, 23: 51–61.
N’Goran, E. K., Diabate, S., Utzinger, J., & Sellin, B.
(1997). Changes in human schistosomiasis levels after the
construction of two large hydroelectric dams in central Côte
d’Ivoire. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 75(6),
541–545.
Norman, R., Bowers, R. G., Begon, M., & Hudson, P. J. (1999).
Persistence of tick-borne virus in the presence of multiple host
species: tick reservoirs and parasite mediated competition.
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 200(1), 111–118.

282 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Oliver, D.M., Heathwaite, L., Haygarth, P.M. and C.D. Clegg
(2005). Transfer of Escherichia coli to water from drained and
undrained grassland after grazing. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 34 (2005), pp. 918–925.
Ostfeld R.S. and Keesing, F. (2000). The function of
biodiversity in the ecology of vector-borne zoonotic diseases.
Can. J. Zool. 78: 2061–2078.
Ostroumov, S. A. (2005). On Some Issues of Maintaining
Water Quality and Self-Puriﬁcation. Water Resources, 32:
305–313.
Ostroumov, S. A. (2006). Biomachinery for maintaining
water quality and natural water self-puriﬁcation in marine
and estuarine systems: elements of a qualitative theory.
International Journal of Oceans and Oceanography, 1:
111–118.
Palmer, M. A. and Febria, C. M. (2012). The heartbeat of
ecosystems. Science, 336(6087), 1393–1394.
Pan Africa Chemistry Network. (PACN). (2010). Africa’s
Water Quality.
Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), (2012). Health
in the Americas.Washington D.C: Pan American Health
Organization.
Passos, C. J., & Mergler, D. (2008). Human mercury exposure
and adverse health eﬀects in the Amazon: a review. Cadernos
de Saúde Pública, 24, s503-s520.
Patz, J. A., Daszak, P., Tabor, G. M., Aguirre, A. A., Pearl,
M., Epstein, J., ... & Working Group on Land Use Change
Disease Emergence. (2004). Unhealthy landscapes: policy
recommendations on land use change and infectious disease
emergence. Environmental health perspectives, 112(10), 1092.
Pejchar, L., & Mooney, H. A. (2009). Invasive species,
ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends in ecology
& evolution, 24(9), 497–504.
Pereira, L.S., Cordery, I. and I. Iacovides (2002). Coping
with water scarcity. International Hydrological Programme
UNESCO, Paris.
Porvari, P. (1995). Mercury levels in fish in Tucuruí
hydroelectric reservoir and in River Moju in Amazonia, in
the state of Pará, Brazil. The Science of the Total Environment
175: 109–117.
Prüss-Ustün, A., Bartram, J., Clasen, T., Colford, J. M.,
Cumming, O., Curtis, V., ... & Cairncross, S. (2014). Burden of
disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in lowand middle-income settings: a retrospective analysis of data
from 145 countries. Tropical Medicine & International Health.
Prüss-Üstün A., Bos, R., Gore, F. & Bartram, J. 2008. Safer
water, better health: costs, beneﬁts and sustainability of
interventions to protect and promote health. World Health
Organization, Geneva.
Prüss-Üstün, A., & Corvalán, C. (2006). Preventing disease
through healthy environments. Geneva: World Health
Organization.

Prüss-Üstün A, Kay D, Fewtrell L, Bartram J, 2004. Unsafe
water, sanitation and hygiene. In Comparative Quantiﬁcation
of Health Risks: The Global and Regional Burden of Disease
Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors. Volumes 1 and
2. Ezzati, M, et al., eds. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Pysek, P., and D. Richardson. (2010) Invasive species,
environmental change and management, and health. Annual
Review of Environmental and Resources 35:25–55.
Ragosta, G., Evensen, C., Atwill, E. R., Walker, M., Ticktin,
T., Asquith, A., & Tate, K. W. (2010). Causal connections
between water quality and land use in a rural tropical island
watershed. EcoHealth, 7(1), 105–113.
Resh, V. H. (2010). Vector-borne diseases of freshwater
habitats. Lake Ecosystem Ecology: A Global Perspective, 403.
Ricciardi, A. (2006) Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian
Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity. Divers
Distrib 12(4):425–433.
Ronderos M.M., Greco, N.M., & Spinelli G.R. (2003).
Diversity of biting midges of the genus Culicoides Latreille
(Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) in the area of the Yacyreta Dam
Lake between Argentina and Paraguay. Memórias do Instituto
Oswaldo Cruz 98 (1):19 – 24.
Rudolf, V.H. & Antonovics J. (2005). Species coexistence and
pathogens with frequency-dependent transmission. Am.
Nat.166: 112–118.
Russi D., ten Brink P., Farmer A., Badura T., Coates D., Förster
J., Kumar R. and Davidson N. (2012) The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. Final
Consultation Draft.
Santos, L. H., Araújo, A. N., Fachini, A., Pena, A.,
Delerue-Matos, C., & Montenegro, M. C. B. S. M. (2010).
Ecotoxicological aspects related to the presence of
pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 175(1–3), 45–95.
Schwarzenbach, R. P., Egli, T., Hofstetter, T. B., Von Gunten,
U., & Wehrli, B. (2010). Global water pollution and human
health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35,
109–136.
Schwarzenbach, R. P., Escher, B. I., Fenner, K., Hofstetter,
T. B., Johnson, C. A., Von Gunten, U., & Wehrli, B. (2006).
The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science,
313(5790), 1072–1077.
Shaw, G., & Lam, P. (2007). Health aspects of freshwater
cyanobacterial toxins. Water Science & Technology: Water
Supply, 7(2), 193–203.
Shaw, G. R., Moore, D. P., & Garnett, C. (2003). Eutrophication
and Algal Blooms. Environmental and Ecological Chemistry,
1–21.
Shiklomanov, I. A., (Ed.), Assessment of Water Resources and
Water Availability in the World, Comprehensive Assessment
of the Freshwater Resources of the World, Stockholm
Environment Institute, Stockholm, 1997.
Simberloﬀ D., Parker I.M., Windle P.N. 2005 “Introduced
species policy, management, and future research needs.”
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 12–20.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 283

Smith V.H., Schindler D.W. 2009. Eutrophication science:
where do we go from here? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24
(4): 201–207. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.009 http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470900041X
(30 July 2014).
Soth, J., Grasser, C. and R. Salerno (1999). The Impact
of Cotton on Fresh Water Resources and Ecosystems: A
Preliminary Analysis. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Soto D & Mena G. 1999. Filter feeding by the freshwater
mussel, Diplodon chilensis, as a biocontrol of salmon farming
eutrophication. Aquaculture 171: 65–81.
Southgate V, Wijk H, Wright C. 1976. Schistosomiasis in Loum,
Cameroun: Schistosoma haematobium, S. intercalatum, and
their natural hybrid. Z. Parasitenkd. 49:149–59
Stearns, B. P., & Stearns, S. C. (2010). Still Watching, from the
Edge of Extinction. BioScience, 60(2), 141–146.
Steinmann P, Keiser J, Bos R, Tanner M, Utzinger J (2006)
Schistosomiasis and water resources development: systematic
review, meta-analysis, and estimates of people at risk. Lancet
Infect Dis 6(7): 411–425. 10.1016/S1473–3099(06)70521–7.
Stoett, P. J. (2012). Global Ecopolitics: Crisis, Governance, and
Justice. University of Toronto Press.
Sylvester F, Dorado J, Boltovskoy D, Juárez A & Cataldo D.
2005. Filtration rates of the invasive pest bivalve Limnoperna
fortunei as a function of Size and Temperature. Hydrobiologia
534: 71–80.
Tennstedt, T., Szczepanowski, R., Braun, S., Pühler, A. and
Schlüter, A. (2003). Occurrence of integron-associated
resistance gene cassetes located on antibiotic resistance
plasmids isolated from a wastewater treatment plant. FEMS
Microbiol Ecol 45: 239–252.
Tundisi, J.G., Tundisi. T.M. and Rocha (2002). Ecossistemas
de água interiores, p. 153–170. In: Rebouças AC & Braga
B (eds). Águas doces do Brasil. Caital ecológico, uso e
conservaçção. São Paulo, Escrituras, 2ª edição, 704 pp.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013).
Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions,
Releases and Environmental Transport. Division of
Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Geneva,
pp. 44. http:// www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/
GlobalMercuryAssessment2013.pdf (Accessed 4 September,
2013).
UNEP (2012). Measuring Progress: Environmental Goals
& Gaps. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
Nairobi: http://unep.org/geo/pdfs/geo5/Measuring_
progress.pdf (Accessed August 14, 2014).
UNEP, UNICEF & WHO (2002). United Nations Environment
Programme, United Nations Children´s Fund and World
Health Organization. Children in the New Millennium:
Environmental Impact on Health. Republic of Malta: 141 pp.
UNESCO, 2009. World Water Assessment Programme. The
United Nations World Water Development Report 3: Water
in a Changing World. Paris: UNESCO, and London: Earthscan.

UNIDO (1996). Advisory Assistance on Avoidance Mercury
Pollution from Artisanal Gold Mining Operations in State
of Bolivar, Venezuela. Prepared by M.M. Veiga, contract SI/
VEN/94/801/11–51. 147 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),
(2003). Guidelines establishing test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants, Analytical Methods for Biological
Pollutants in Ambient Water (Final Rule, U.S. Federal
Register- 40 CFR Part 136 Vol. 68, No.139).
Uyigue, E. (2005). Dams and livelihood: the problems of
parasitic diseases in communities hosting dams in Nigeria.
In International Water Management Institute Conference
Papers (No. h041154).
Van Buskirk, J. and Ostfeld R.S. (1995). Controlling Lyme
disease risk by modifying the density and species composition
of tick hosts. Ecol. Appl. 5: 1133–1140.
Veiga, M. M., Angeloci-Santos, G., Meech, J. A. (2014) Review
of barriers to reduce mercury use in artisanal gold mining. The
Extractive Industries and Society, 1: 351–361.
Veiga M. M. (1997). Introducing New Technologies for
Abatement of Global Mercury Pollution in Latin America –
Rio de Janeiro: UNIDO/UBC/CETEM/CNPq, 94pp.
Veiga M. M, Meech J. Á. and Oñates, N. (1994). Mercury
Pollution from Deforestation. Nature 368: 816–817.
Viviroli, D., R. Weingartner, and B. Messerli. 2003. Assessing
the hydrological significance of the world’s mountains.
Mountain Research and Development 23 1:32–40.
Woltermade, C.J. (2000). Ability of restored wetlands
to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in
agricultural drainage water. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 55(3), 303–309.
WHO (2013) Global health observatory-data repository
[Online]. http://apps.who.int/ghodata/files/84/ghodata.
html.
WHO (2010a). Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water:
2010 Update. WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20
Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland.
WHO (2010b). Water for Health: WHO Guidelines for
Drinking-Water Quality. Geneva.
WHO, (2004). Waterborne Zoonoses: Identiﬁcation, Causes,
and Control/ Edited by J.A. Cotruvo, A. Dufour, G. Rees, J.
Bartram, R. Carr, D.O. Cliver, G.F. Craun, R. Fayer and V.P.J.
Gannon
WHO (2003a). Quantifying selected major risks to health.
The World Health Report 2002. World Health Organization,
Geneva (Chapter 4).
WHO (2003b). Emerging Issues in Water and Infectious
Disease. World Health Organization, Geneva.
WHO (1999). Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A guide to their
public health consequences, monitoring and management/
Chorus, I. and Bartram, J. (Eds).
WHO and UNICEF (2012). Progress on Drinking Water and
Sanitation: 2012 Update. United States: WHO/UNICEF Joint
Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation.

284 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

WWF. (2012). Living Planet Report 2012. WWF International,
Gland, Switzerland.
Yongsi, H. B. N. (2010). Suﬀering for water, suﬀering from
water: access to drinking-water and associated health risks in
Cameroon. Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 28(5),
424.

Cao, T., M. Wang, et al. (2009). “Air quality for metals and
sulfur in Shanghai, China, determined with moss bags.”
Environmental Pollution 157(4): 1270–1278.
Cape, J. N., L. J. van der Eerden, et al. (2009). “Evidence for
changing the critical level for ammonia.” Environmental
Pollution 157(3): 1033–1037.

Zakhary, K. (1997). Factors aﬀecting the prevalence of
schistosomiasis in the Volta region of Ghana. McGill Journal
of Medicine, 3, 93–101.

Cardelino C.A., Chameides W.L. (1990). Natural
hydrocarbons, urbanization, and urban ozone. Journal of
Geophysical Research. 95(D9):13,971–13,979.

Zhang, X. X., Zhang, T., & Fang, H. H. (2009). Antibiotic
resistance genes in water environment. Applied microbiology
and biotechnology, 82(3), 397–414.

Cariñanosa P, Casares-Porcela M, et al. (2014). Estimating the
allergenic potential of urban green spaces: A case-study in
Granada, Spain. Landscape and Urban Planning 123; 134–144

Zettler, E., T. Mincer, and Amaral-Zettler, L. (2013) Life
in the Plastisphere: Microbial Communities on Plastic
Marine Debris. Environmental Science and Technology
47(13):7137–7146.

Castro Ribeiro, M., P. Pinho, et al. (2014). “Associations
between outdoor air quality and birth weight: a geostatistical
sequential simulation approach in Coastal Alentejo, Portugal.”
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 28(3):
527–540.

Chapter 4
Aničić, M., M. Tomašević, et al. (2009). “Monitoring of trace
element atmospheric deposition using dry and wet moss
bags: Accumulation capacity versus exposure time.” Journal
of Hazardous Materials 171(1–3): 182–188.
Augusto, S., C. Máguas, et al. (2013). “Guidelines for
biomonitoring persistent organic pollutants (POPs), using
lichens and aquatic mosses – A review.” Environmental
Pollution 180(0): 330–338.
Augusto, S., C. Maguas, et al. (2010). “Lichens as an
integrating tool for monitoring PAH atmospheric deposition:
a comparison with soil, air and pine needles.” Environmental
Pollution 158(2): 483–489.
Augusto, S., M. J. Pereira, et al. (2012). “Assessing human
exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in a
petrochemical region utilizing data from environmental
biomonitors.” J Toxicol Environ Health A 75(13–15):
819–830.

Cavanagh J.E., Zawar-Reza P., et al. (2009). Spatial
attenuation of ambient particulate matter air pollution within
an urbanised native forest patch. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening 8:21–30.
Chang, C. Li, M., Chang, S. (2007). A preliminary study on
the cool-island intensity of Taipei city parks. Landscape and
Urban Planning 80, 386–395.
Costello, L.R., Jones, K.S. (1994). WUCOLS: Water Use
Classiﬁcation of Landscape Species – A guide to the water
needs of landscape plants. Half Moon Bay, CA: University
of California Cooperative Extension, San Mateo and San
Francisco Counties. 90 p.
Costonis, A.C. (1976). Criteria for evaluating air pollution
injury to forest trees. Oslo, Norway: IUFRO Congress.
Dasch J.M. (1987). Measurement of dry deposition to
surfaces in deciduous and pine canopies. Environmental
Pollution 44:261–277.

Barbour, M.G, Burk, J.H., et al.(1980). Terrestrial plant
ecology, 1st edn. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.

Fann N., Lamson A.D., et al. (2012). Estimating the National
Public Health Burden Associated with Exposure to Ambient
PM2.5 and Ozone. Risk Analysis 32:81–95.

Black, V.J. (1985). SO2 eﬀects on stomatal behavior. In:
Winner W.E., Mooney, H.A. and Goldstein R.A. eds. Sulfur
dioxide and vegetation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press: 96–117.

Gadsdon, S. R., J. R. Dagley, et al. (2010). “Relationships
between lichen community composition and concentrations
of NO2 and NH3.” Environmental Pollution 158(8):
2553–2560.

Brauer, M. (2010). “How Much, How Long, What, and Where.”
Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society 7(2): 111–115.

Garsed, S.G. (1985). SO2 uptake and transport. In: Winner W.
E., Mooney, H. A. and Goldstein R.A. eds. Sulfur dioxide and
vegetation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 75–95.

Bytnerowicz A., Fenn M.E., et al. (1999). Wet and dry
pollutant deposition to the mixed conifer forest. In: Oxidant
Air Pollution Impacts in the Montane Forests of Southern
California: A Case Study of the San Bernardino Mountains
(Eds. Miller PR & McBride JR) Springer-Verlag. New York.
pp. 235–269.
Calfapietra, C., Mugnozza, G.S., et al. (2008). Isoprene
emission rates under elevated CO2 and O3 in two ﬁeld-grown
aspen clones diﬀering in their sensitivity to O3 . New Phytol.
179:55–61

Geiser, L. H., S. E. Jovan, et al. (2010). “Lichen-based critical
loads for atmospheric nitrogen deposition in Western Oregon
and Washington Forests, USA.” Environmental Pollution
158(7): 2412–2421.
Geron, C.D., Guenther, A.B., et al. (1994). An improved model
for estimating emissions of volatile organic compounds
from forests in the eastern United States. J. Geophys. Res.
99(D6):12,773–12,791.
Gromke C., Ruck B. (2009). On the impact of trees on
dispersion processes of traﬃc emissions in street canyons.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 131(1):19−34.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 285

Guenther, A. (2002). The contribution of reactive carbon
emissions from vegetation to the carbon balance of terrestrial
ecosystems. Chemosphere 49: 837–844.
Haigh, M.J. (1980). Ruderal communities in English cities.
Urban Ecology 4, 329–338.
Harmens, H., L. Foan, et al. (2013). “Terrestrial mosses
as biomonitors of atmospheric POPs pollution: A review.”
Environmental Pollution 173(0): 245–254.
Hawksworth, D. L. and F. Rose (1970). “Qualitative Scale for
estimating Sulphur Dioxide Air Pollution in England and
Wales using Epiphytic Lichens.” Nature 227(5254): 145–148.
Heisler, G.M. (1986). Energy savings with trees. Journal of
Arboriculture 12(5):113-125.
Heisler, G.M. (1990). Mean wind speed below building
height in residential neighborhoods with diﬀreent tree
densities. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Transactions 96 (1),
1389–1396.
Heisler, G.H., Walton, J., et al. (2007). Empirical modeling and
mapping of below-canopy air temperatures in Baltimore, MD
and vicinity. In: Proceedings of Seventh Urban Environment
Symposium, sponsored by American Meteorological Society,
San Diego, CA.
Hope, D., Gries, C., et al. (2003). Socioeconomics drive urban
plant diversity. PNAS 100(15); 8788–8792.
Iverson, L.R., Prasad, A.M. (2001). Potential changes in
tree species richness and forest community types following
climate change. Ecosystems 4, 186–199.
Jovan, S., J. Riddell, et al. (2012). “Eutrophic lichens respond
to multiple forms of N: implications for critical levels
and critical loads research.” Ecological Applications 22(7):
1910–1922.
Kunzig AP, Warren P, et al. (2005). The eﬀects of human
socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban
patterns of biodiversity. Ecology and Society 10 (1): 23. [online]
ttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art23
Lefohn A.S., Lawrence J.A., et al, (1988). A comparison of
indices that describe the relationship between exposure
to ozone and reduction in the yield of agricultural crops.
Atmospheric Environment. 22:1229–1240.
Lerdau, M., Slobodkin, L. (2002) Trace gas emissions and
species dependent ecosystem services. TRENDS in Ecology &
Evolution 17(7):309–312.

Luley, C.J., Bond, J. (2002). A plan to integrate management
of urban trees into air quality planning. Report to Northeast
State Foresters Association. Davey Resource Group, Kent,
OH. 73 p.
Markert, B., U. Herpin, et al. (1996). “A comparison of heavy
metal deposition in selected Eastern European countries
using the moss monitoring method, with special emphasis
on the ‘Black Triangle’.” Science of the Total Environment
193(2): 85–100.
McPherson, E.G. and J.R. Simpson. (2000). Carbon dioxide
reductions through urban forestry: guidelines for professional
and volunteer tree planters. PSW GTR-171. Albany, CA:
USDA Forest Service, Paciﬁc Southwest Research Station
Muehlenbach, V. (1969). Along the railroad tracks. Missouri
Botanical Garden Bulletin 57 (30), 10–18.
National Academy of Sciences. (1977a). Eﬀects of nitrogen
oxides on vegetation. In: Nitrogen Oxides. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences:147–158.
National Academy of Sciences. (1977b). Ozone and other
photochemical oxidants. Washington, DC: National Academy
of Sciences. 789 pp.
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP).
(1991). 1990 integrated assessment report. Washington, DC:
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. 520 pp.
Nowak, D.J. (1994). Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urban
forest. In: McPherson, E.G, D.J. Nowak and R.A. Rowntree.
Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago
Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report NE-186. pp. 63–81.
Nowak, D.J. (2010). Urban biodiversity and climate change.
In: Urban Biodiversity and Design. Muller, N., Werner, P. and
Kelcey, J.G. (eds). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. Hoboken, NJ.
p. 101–117.
Nowak, D.J., Rowntree R.A., et al. (1996). Measuring and
analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape and Urban Planning
36, 49–57.
Nowak, D.J., Civerolo K.L., et al. (2000). A modeling study of
the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric Environment
34:1610–1613.
Nowak D.J., Noble, et al. (2001). Assessing the US urban
forest resource. Journal of Forestry 99 (3), 37–42.
Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., et al. (2002). Brooklyn’s Urban
Forest. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-290. 107 p.

Linzon, S.N. (1978). Eﬀects of airborne sulfur pollutants on
plants. In: Nriagu, J. O. ed. Sulfur in the environment: Part II:
ecological impacts. New York: John Wiley and Sons:109–162.

Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., et al. (2006). Air pollution removal by
urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening 4:115–123.

Little, P. (1977). Deposition of 2.75, 5.0, and 8.5 mm particles
to plant and soil surfaces. Environ. Pollut. 12:293–305.

Nowak, D.J., R.E. Hoehn, et al. (2008). A ground-based
method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem
services. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 34(6): 347–358

Liu, X.-Y., H.-Y. Xiao, et al. (2011). “Physiological and isotopic
signals in epilithic mosses for indicating anthropogenic
sulfur on the urban–rural scale.” Ecological Indicators 11(5):
1245–1250.

Nowak, D.J., Greenﬁeld, E.J. (2012). Tree and impervious
cover in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning
107: 21– 30.

286 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Nowak D.J., Hirabayashi S., et al. (2013). Modeled PM2.5
removal by trees in ten U.S. cities and associated health
eﬀects. Environmental Pollution 178:395–402.

Shafer, S.R., Heagle, A.S. (1989). Growth responses of ﬁeldgrown loblolly pine to chronic doses of ozone during multiple
growing seasons. Canadian Journal of Forestry 19: 821–831.

Nowak, D.J. Hirabayashi, S., et al. (2014). Tree and forest
eﬀects on air quality and human health in the United States.
Environmental Pollution 193:119–129.

Smith, W.H. (1984). Pollutant uptake by plants. In: Treshow,
M. ed. Air pollution and plant life. New York: John Wiley and
Sons: 417–450.

Numata, M. (1977). The impact of urbanization on vegetation
in Japan. In: Miyawaki, A. & Tuxen, R. (eds.) Vegetation
Science and Environmental Protection. Maruzen Co. Ltd.
Tokyo.

Smith, W.H. (1990). Air pollution and forests. New York:
Springer-Verlag. 618 p.

Nylander, W. (1866). Les lichens du jardin du Luxembourg
Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 13: 364–371.

Smith, A.E., Levenson, J.B. (1980). A Screening Procedure
for the Impacts of Air Pollution Sources on Plants, Soils and
Animals. EPA 450 / 2–81–078 US Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. 124 p.

Oﬃce of Technology Assessment. (1989). Catching our
breath: next steps for reducing urban ozone. OTA-O-412.
Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Technology Assessment.

Taha, H. (1996). Modeling impacts of increased urban
vegetation on ozone air quality in the South Coast Air Basin.
Atmos. Environ. 30(20):3423–3430.

Ogren, T.L. (2000). Allergy-Free Gardening. Ten Speed Press,
Berkeley, CA.

Tingey, D.T., Turner, D.P., et al. (1991). Factors controlling
the emissions of monoterpenes and other volatile organic
compounds. In: Sharkey, T.D., Holland, E.A., Mooney, H.A.
eds. Trace gas emissions by plants. New York: Academic Press:
93–119.

Pettyjohn M.E., Levetin, E. (1997). A comparative biochemical
study of conifer pollen allergens. Aerobiologia 13; 259 -267
Pope, C.A., Burnett, R.T., et al. (2002). Lung cancer,
cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to ﬁne
particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical
Association 287(9):1132–1141.
Powe, N.A.,Willis, K.G. (2004). Mortality and morbidity
benefits of air pollution (SO2 and PM10) absorption
attributable to woodland in Britain. J. Environ. Manage. 70:
119–128.
Rennenberg, H. (1991). The signiﬁcance of higher plants
in the emission of sulfur compounds from terrestrial
ecosystems. In: Sharkey, T.D., Holland, E.A., Mooney, H.A.
eds. Trace gas emissions by plants. New York: Academic Press:
217–260.
Riddell, J., T. H. Nash Iii, et al. (2008). “The eﬀect of HNO3
gas on the lichen Ramalina menziesii.” Flora – Morphology,
Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 203(1): 47–54.
Riddell, J., P. E. Padgett, et al. (2012). “Physiological responses
of lichens to factorial fumigations with nitric acid and ozone.”
Environmental Pollution 170(0): 202–210.
Root, H. T., L. H. Geiser, et al. (2013). “A simple tool for
estimating throughfall nitrogen deposition in forests of
western North America using lichens.” Forest Ecology and
Management 306(0): 1–8.
Salmond, J.A., Williams, D.E., et al. (2013). The inﬂuence
of vegetation on the horizontal and vertical distribution of
pollutants in a street canyon. Science of the Total Environment
443: 287–298.
Schjoerring, J.K. (1991). Ammonia emission from the foliage
of growing plants. In:Sharkey, T.D., Holland, E.A., Mooney,
H.A. eds. Trace gas emissions by plants. New York: Academic
Press: 267–292.
Seaward, M.R.D. (2002). Lichens as Monitors of
Radioelements. Monitoring with Lichens  – Monitoring
Lichens. P. Nimis, C. Scheidegger and P. Wolseley, Springer
Netherlands. 7: 85–96.

Tiwary, A., Sinnett, D., et al. (2009). An integrated tool to
assess the role of new plantings in PM10 capture and the
human health beneﬁts: A case study in London. Environ.
Pollution 157: 2645–2653.
Townsend, A.M. (1974). Sorption of ozone by nine shade
tree species. Journal of American Horticultural Science. 99(3):
206–208.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Non-road
engine and vehicle emission study-report. Report No. EPA
460/3–91–02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oﬃce
of Mobile Services, Ann Arbor, MI.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Our nation’s
air: status and trends through 2008. EPA-454 / R-09–002.
Oﬃce of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Triangle Park,
NC. 49 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Visibility.
http://www.epa.gov/visibility/what.html [last accessed July
2014]
Vos, P.E.J., Maiheu, B., et al. (2013). Improving local air
quality in cities: To tree or not to tree? Environmental Pollution
183: 113–122.
Wania, A., Bruse, M., et al. (2012). Analysing the inﬂuence
of diﬀerent street vegetation on traﬃc-induced particle
dispersion using microscale simulations. Journal of
Environmental Management 94: 91–101.
Wolterbeek, B. (2002). “Biomonitoring of trace element
air pollution: principles, possibilities and perspectives.”
Environmental Pollution 120(1): 11–21.
World Health Organisation (WHO), (2014). Burden of
disease from the joint eﬀects of Household and Ambient Air
Pollution for 2012. WHO, Geneva. http://www.who.int/phe/
health_topics/outdoorair/databases/AP_jointeﬀect_BoD_
results_March2014.pdf (last accessed July 2014)

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 287

World Health Organisation (WHO), (2014a). 7 million
premature deaths annually linked to air pollution. Press
release, 25th March 2014. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/
news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/ (last accessed July
2014)

Bassil KL, Vakil C, Sanborn M, Cole DC, Kaur JS, Kerr
KJ. 2007. Cancer health eﬀects of pesticides: systematic
review. Can Fam Physician 53 (10): 1704–11. PMC 2231435.
PMID  17934034. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC2231435/ (24 July 2014).

World Health Organisation (WHO), (2014b). Household air
pollution and health. WHO Fact Sheet No. 292; March 2014.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/ (last
accessed July 2014)

Bebber DP, Ramotowski MAT, Gurr SJ. 2013. Crop pests
and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nature
Climate Change 3: 985–988.

Chapter 5
Abate, T. A. van Huis, J.K.O. Ampof. 2000. Pest management
strategies in traditional agriculture: An African Perspective.
Abawi, G. S. and T. L. Widmer (2000). Impact of soil health
management practices on soilborne pathogens, nematodes
and root diseases of vegetable crops. Applied Soil Ecology,
15(1), 37–47.
Adoukonou-Sagbadja H, Dansi A, Vodouhè R, Akpagana K
(2006) Indigenous knowledge and traditional conservation
of fonio millet (Digitaria exilis, Digitaria iburua) in Togo.
Biodiversity and Conservation 15(8):2379–2395.
Alavanja M.C.R. 2009. Pesticides Use and Exposure Extensive
Worldwide. Rev Environ Health. 24(4): 303–309. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946087/
pdf/nihms-232681.pdf
Alexandratos, N. and J. Bruinsma (2012) World Agriculture
Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision. No 12–03, Rome
Food and Agriculture Organization
Altieri, M.A. and L.C. Merrick, 1987. In situ conservation of
crop genetic resources through maintenance of traditional
farming systems. Economic Botany 41(1): 86--96.
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth,
NJ., Bauch, S., Borner, J., Smith-Hall, C., and Wunder, S.
(2014) Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global
comparative analysis. World Development.
Ashman, T.-L., Knight, T.M., Steets, J.A., Amarasekare, P.,
Burd, M., Campbell, D.R. et al. (2004). Pollen limitation of
plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and
consequences. Ecology, 85, 2408–2421.
Barabasz W., Albińska D., Jaśkowska M., Lipiec J. 2002.
Biological Eﬀects of Mineral Nitrogen Fertilization on Soil
Microorganisms. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 11
(3): 193–198. http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/11.3/193–198.pdf
Baranski M., Dominika Srednicka-Tober, Nikolaos Volakakis,
Chris Seal, Roy Sanderson, Gavin B. Stewart, Charles
Benbrook, Bruno Biavati, Emilia Markellou, Charilaos
Giotis, Joanna Gromadzka-Ostrowska, Ewa Rembiałkowska,
Krystyna Skwarło-Son´ ta, Raija Tahvonen, Dagmar
Janovska, Urs Niggli, Philippe Nicot and Carlo Leifert.
Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and
lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown
crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.
The British journal of nutrition 06/2014; DOI:  10.1017/
S0007114514001366

Benton Jones J.Jr. 2012. Inorganic Chemical Fertilizers and
Their Properties. In: Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility Manual.
Second Edition CRC Press. ISBN 978–1-4398–1609–7. eBook
ISBN 978–1-4398–1610–3.
Bharucha, Z. and Pretty, J. (2010) The roles and values of
wild foods in agricultural systems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365:
2913–2926
Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Booij, C.J.H. and T. Tscharntke (2006).
Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a
review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural
pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 273(1595), 1715–1727.
Bita, C.E and t. Gerats (2013) Plant tolerance to high
temperature in a changing environment: scientific
fundamentals and production of heat stress-tolerant crops.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 4(237).
Bolognesi C. Genotoxicity of pesticides: a review of human
biomonitoring studies. Mutation Res. 2003;543:251–72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12787816
Boshoff, W.H.P., Pretorius, Z.A. and Niekerk (2002).
Establishment, distribution and pathogenicity of Puccini
striiformis f. sp. tritici in South Africa. Plant Disease,
86:485–492
Brush, S.B., 1999. Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation
of Crop Diversity. IPGRI/IDRC/Lewis, 288p.
Bunting and Ahmed (2014) Climate change and adaptation
and prawn-fish-rice agroecosystems, Landscapes Blog
for People, Food and Nature http://blog.ecoagriculture.
org/2014/07/14/climate-change-adaptation-and-prawnﬁsh-rice-agroecosystems/
Calderone, N.W. (2012). Insect pollinated crops, insect
pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate
data for the period 1992–2009. PLoS One, 7(5), e37235.
Carr, J.A., Outhwaite, W.E., Goodman, G.L., Oldfield,
T.E.E. and Foden, W.B. 2013. Vital but vulnerable: Climate
change vulnerability and human use of wildlife in Africa’s
Albertine Rift. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species
Survival Commission No. 48. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. xii + 224pp.
Carter, C. et al. (2007). Palm oil markets and future supply.
Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol., 109 pp. 307–314
Cassidy, E.S., West, P.C., Gerber, J.S. and J.A. Foley (2013).
Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people
nourished per hectare. Environmental Research Letters,
8:034015

288 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

CBD (2014) Emerging key messages for the state of
knowledge review on the interlinkages between biodiversity
and human health. Subsidiary Body on Scientiﬁc, Technical
and Technological Advice, Eighteenth meeting, Montreal,
23–28 June 2014, Item 9.7 of the provisional agenda*.
Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta18/information/sbstta-18-inf-15-en.pdf
Chen, X.M. (2005). Epidemiology and control of strip rust
[Puccini striiformis f. sp. tritici] on wheat. Canadian Journal
of Plant Pathology, 27:314–337.
Chung, A. Y. C., P. Eggleton, M. R. Speight, P. M. Hammond,
and V. K. Chey (2000). The diversity of beetle assemblages
in diﬀerent habitat types in Sabah, Malaysia. Bulletin of
Entomological Research 90 : 475 – 496.
Clay, J.(2004) World Agriculture and the Environment: A
Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices.
Island Press
Corley, R.H.V. and P.B. Tinker (2003). The Oil Palm. Blackwell
Science
Cornell University. 2001a. Pesticide Applicator Core
Tutorial. Module 4: Toxicity of pesticides. Pesticide Safety
Education Program (PSEP). Pesticide Management Education
Programme. http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/Tutorials/coretutorial/module04/index.aspx (24 July 2014)
Cornell University. 2001b. Pesticide Applicator Core Tutorial.
Module 6: Ecology and environmental considerations.
Pesticide Safety Education Program (PSEP). Pesticide
Management Education Programme. Http://psep.cce.cornell.
edu/Tutorials/core-tutorial/module06/index.aspx (28 July
2014).
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer
acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically
modiﬁed food: Review and implications for food policy. Food
policy, 33(2), 99–111.
Council on Scientiﬁc Aﬀairs, American Medical Association.
1997. Educational and Informational Strategies to Reduce
Pesticide Risks. Preventive Medicine, 26, 2. Available
at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/
pm/1997/00000026/00000002/art00122%3Bjsessionid=p
kwgpommd0xm.alexandra

De Vendômois, J. S., Cellier, D., Vélot, C., Clair, E., Mesnage,
R., & Séralini, G. E. (2010). Debate on GMOs health risks
after statistical ﬁndings in regulatory tests. International
journal of biological sciences, 6(6), 590.
Department of Environment, Food and Rural (2004). Making
space for water: Taking forward a new Government strategy
for ﬂood and coastal erosion risk management in England.
First Government Response to the Autumn 2004 Making
Space for Water Consultation Exercise.
Döll, P., Siebert, S. (2002). Global modeling of irrigation water
requirements. Water Resources Research, 38(4), 8–1.
Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2009). Health risks of
genetically modiﬁed foods. Critical reviews in food science and
nutrition, 49(2), 164–175.
Donald, P.F. (2004). Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural
commodity productions systems. Conservation Biology,
18(1)18–37
Eilers, E.J., Kremen, C., Greenleaf, S.S., Garber, A.K. and A-M.
Klein (2011) Contribution of pollinator-mediated crops to
nutrients in the human food supply. PloS One 6(6): e21363
Ellis, E.C, Goldewijk K.K, Siebert, S, Lightma, D, Ramankutty,
N, (2010). Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes,
1700–2000, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 589–606.
Ellis, E.C and Ramankutty, N, (2008).Putting people in the
map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 6 439–447.
Eyzaguirre P.B. and Linares O.F. (eds) 2004. Home Gardens
and Agrobiodiversity. Smithsonian Institution. Washington.
296 pp.
FAO. (2015). Coping with climate change – the roles of
genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome.
FAO. (2014). State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI
2014). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
FAO (2012). Intergovernmental group on Tea: Current
and medium term outlook for tea. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, committee on
Commodity problems, Kenya.

Cribb J. (2010) The Coming Global Famine: The Global Food
Crisis and What we Can Do to Avoid it. CSIRO Publishing

FAO. (2011). The State of the World’s land and water resources
for food and agriculture: Managing systems at risks. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/nr/solaw/solaw-home/it/

Damalas, C. A.; Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 2011. Pesticide
Exposure, Safety Issues, and Risk Assessment Indicators.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 8 (12): 1402. doi:10.3390/ijerph8051402. Available at:
http://www.mdpi.com/1660–4601/8/5/1402 (28 July 2014)

FAO. (2010). The Second Report of the State of the
World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
FAO. Rome

De Clerck, F., Fanzo, J., Palm, C. and Remans, R. (2011)
Ecological approaches to human nutrition. Food and Nutrition
Bulletin 32: S41-S50.
De Vallavieille-Pope, C. (2004). Management of disease
resistance diversity of cultivars of a species in single ﬁelds:
Controlling epidemics. Comptes Rendus Biol. 327: 611–620.

FAO (2007) The State of the World’s Animal Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome.
FAO (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues
and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 289

FAO. (2003). International Code of Conduct on the
Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Revised Version) adopted
by the Hundred and Twenty-third Session of the FAO Council
in November 2002. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. Rome, Italy. 36 p. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/
fao/005/y4544e/y4544e00.pdf (24 July 2014)
FAO (2003). Summary of food and agricultural statistics.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations,
Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), (1996). List of
animal species used in aquaculture prepared by L Garibaldi.
FAO Fisheries Circular No. 914.
FAO/PAR, (2011). Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture:
Contributing to food security and sustainability in a changing
world. FAO, Rome. Pp. 66.
Fenner-Crisp, PE. Risk-assessment and risk management: the
regulatory process. 2001. In: Kreiger, R., editor. Handbook
of Pesticide Toxicology. 2nd Ed. Academic; San Diego: 2001.
p. 681–690.

Galuzzi, G., P. Eyzaguirre, and V. Negri. 2010. Home gardens:
neglected hotspots of agrobiodiversity and cultural diversity.
Biodiversity and Conservation 19:3635--3654.
Gardiner, M.M., Landis, D.A., Gratton, C., DiFonzo, C.D.,
O’Neal, M., Chacon, J.M. and G.E. Heimpel (2009). Landscape
diversity enhances biological control of an introduced crop
pest in the north-central USA. Ecological Applications, 19(1),
143–154.
Garibaldi, Lucas A., Ingolf Steﬀan-Dewenter, Rachael Winfree,
Marcelo A. Aizen, Riccardo Bommarco, Saul A. Cunningham,
Claire Kremen et al. (2013). Wild pollinators enhance fruit
set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance.” Science 339,
no. 6127: 1608–1611.
Gibbs, H.K., Ruesh, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren,
P., Ramankutty, N and J.A.. Foley (2010) Tropical forests were
the primary sources of new agriucltural land in the 1980s and
1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (38): 16732–16737
Gilden RC, Huﬄing K, Sattler B. 2010. Pesticides and health
risks. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 39 (1): 103–10.

Finckh, M.R. and M.S. Wolfe. 2006. Diversiﬁcation strategies.
Pp. 269--308 in The Epidemiology of Plant Disease (B.M.
Cooke et al. Eds.). Springer, NY, USA.

Glenn, E. P., Lee, C., Felger, R., and Zengel, S. (1996). Eﬀects
of water management on the wetlands of the Colorado River
delta, Mexico. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1175–1186.

Flath, K. and G. Barthels (2002). Virulenzsituation
in osterreichischen und deutschen Populationen des
Weizengelbrostes. Bereicht uber die 52. Tagung der
Vereinigung der Pflanzenzuchter und Saatgutkaufleute
Osterreichs, Gumpenstein, pp. 51–56

Glor, R. E., A. S. Flecker, M. F. Benard, and A. G. Power. 2001.
Lizard diversity and agricultural disturbance in a Caribbean
forest landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 711 – 723

Foley, J.A. DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G.,
Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs,
H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik,
C.J., Monfreda, C.,. Patz, J.A, Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N.
and P.K. Snyder (2005). Global consequences of land use.
Science, 309: 570–574
Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman,
Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt Johnston, Nathaniel
D. Mueller et al. (2011). “Solutions for a cultivated planet.”
Nature 478, no. 7369: 337–342.

Godfray, C.H.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L.,
Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M.
and C. Toulmin (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding
9 billion people. Science 327: 812
Godfray, H.C.J. et al. (2010) The future of the global food
system. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B2010 365: 2769–2777.
Golden, C.D., Fernald, L.C.H., Brashares, J.S., Rasolofoniaina,
B.J.R. and Kremen, C. 2011. Beneﬁts of wildlife consumption
to child nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
108(49): 19653–19656. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1112586108.

Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, FAPRI
(2011). World Biofuels: FAPRI-ISU 2011 Agricultural Outlook
(www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook/2011/)

Grau, H.R., Aide, T.M., Zimmerman, J.K., Thomlinson, J.R.,
Helmer, E., and Zou, X. (2003). The ecological consequences
of socioeconomic and land-use changes in postagriculture
Puerto Rico. BioScience, 53(12), 1159–1168

Food Composition. Global Progress Report 2012. Rome:
FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/
food-biodiversity/en/

Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P. and A. Balmford
(2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307, 550

Fox, JE, Gulledge, J, Engelhaupt, E, Burrow, ME, and
McLachlan, JA. 2007. Pesticides reduce symbiotic eﬃciency
of nitrogen-ﬁxing rhizobia and host plants. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104 (24):
10282–10287. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC1885820/
Frison, E. A., Cherfas, J., and Hodgkin, T. (2011). Agricultural
biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in
food and nutrition security. Sustainability, 3(1), 238–253.
Gallai, N., Salles, J.-M., Settele, J. and B.E. Vaissière (2009)
Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture
confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics,
Volume 68, 3(15): 81–821

Grigg, D. B. (1974) The growth and distribution of the world’s
arable land 1870–1970, Geography, 59, 104–110.
Grube A., Donaldson D., Kiely T, WuUS L. 2011. 2011.
Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market
Estimates. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Washington DC. 33 p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/
opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/market_estimates2007.
pdf (29 July 2014)
Hajjar, R. and Hodgkin, T. (2007). The use of wild relatives in
crop improvement: a survey of developments over the last 20
years. Euphytica 156: 1 – 13.

290 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Halwart, M. (2013) Valuing aquatic biodiversity in
agricultural landscapes. In: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. Borelli,
T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using
Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues
in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
Halwart, M. (2006). Biodiversity and nutrition in rice-based
aquatic ecosystems. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis, 19(6), 747–751.
Halwart, M. and Bartley, D. (eds.). 2005. Aquatic biodiversity in
rice-based ecosystems. Studies and reports from Cambodia, China,
Lao PDR and Viet Nam. [CD-ROM]. Rome, FAO. Also available
at ftp://ftp.fao. org/FI/CD-Rom/AqBiodCD20Jul2005/Start.
pdf
Henry, M.; Beguin, M.; Requier, F.; Rollin, O.; Odoux, J.
-F.; Aupinel, P.; Aptel, J.; Tchamitchian, S.; Decourtye, A.
2012. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success
and Survival in Honey Bees. Science 336 (6079): 348–350.
doi:10.1126/science.1215039. http://www.sciencemag.org/
content/336/6079/348 (28 July 2014)
Heywood, V. (2013) Overview of agricultural biodiversity and
its contribution to nutrition and health, In: Fanzo, J. and
Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food
and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition
and Health. Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
Hodgkin, T. And Bordoni, P. (2012) Climate change and the
conservation of plant genetic resources. Journal of Crop
Improvement 26: 329–345
Hoehn, P., Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J. M. and I. SteﬀanDewenter (2008) Functional group diversity of bee pollinators
increases crop yield. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 275(1648), 2283–2291.
Holstein Assoc. USA (1986). Holstein Type-Production Sire
Summaries. Holstein Association USA, Brattleboro, VT.
Holt-Giménez, E. (2002). Measuring farmers’ agroecological
resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study
in participatory, sustainable land management impact
monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 93(1),
87–105.
Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How
sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and
human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental
health perspectives, 110(5), 445.
Hovmoller, M.S. and A.F. Justesen (2007) Appearance and
interpretation of atypical phenotypes of Puccini striiformis
f. sp. tritici in NW-Europe. Australian Journal of Agricultural
Research, 58:518–524.
Hovmoller,M.S., Yahyaoui, A.H., Milus, E.S and A. Justesen
(2008). Rapid global spread of two aggressive strains of a
wheat rust fungus. Molecular Ecology, online.
Hunter, D. and Fanzo, J. (2013) Agricultural biodiversity,
diverse diets and improving nutrition. In, Diversifying Food
and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition
and Health (Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. et al eds) Issues in
Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK p. 1–13

Hunter, D. and Heywood V.H. (eds) (2011) Crop Wild
Relatives; A Manual of In Situ Conservation. Issues in
Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK. 414pp
Husband, B.C. and D.W. Schemske (1996). Evolution of the
magnitude and timing of inbreeding depression in plants.
Evolution, 50, 54–70.
Ibragimov, N., Evett, S. R., Esanbekov, Y., Kamilov, B. S.,
Mirzaev, L., and Lamers, J. (2007). Water use eﬃciency
of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow
irrigation. Agricultural water management, 90(1), 112–120.
Iosefa, T., Taylor, M., Hunter, D. and Tuia, V (2013). Supporting
farmers’ access to the global gene pool and participatory
selection in taro in the Paciﬁc. In, De Boef, W.S., N. Peroni, A.
Subedi and M.H. Thijssen (eds.) 2013. Community Biodiversity
Management: Promoting Resilience and the Conservation
of Plant Genetic Resources. Earthscan, UK p. 285–289
Iris Macfarlane (2004). The Empire of Tea. The Overlook Press.
p. 32.
Jackson L.E., Burger M., Cavagnaro T.R. 2008. Roots,
Nitrogen Transformations, and Ecosystem Services. Annual
Review of Plant Biology 59: 341–363. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.
arplant.59.032607.092932. http://www.annualreviews.org/
doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092932
Jaggard K.W. et al (2010) Possible changes to arable crop
yields by 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society; Biological Sciences 365: 2835–2851
Jarvis D., Fadda C., De Santis P., Thompson J. (eds) 2012.
Damage, diversity and genetic vulnerability: the role of
crop genetic diversity in the agricultural production system
to reduce pest and disease damage. Proceedings of an
international symposium, 15–17 February 2011, Rabat,
Morocco. Bioversity International. Rome, Italy.
Jarvis, A. Lane A. Hijmans R. 2008. The eﬀect of climate
change on crop wild relatives. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 126: 13–23
Jarvis, D., Hodgkin, T., Bhuwon, S., Fadda, C. and Lopez
Noriega, I. (2011). A heuristic framework for identifying
multiple ways of supporting the conservation and use of
traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production
systems. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:125–176. DOI:
10.1080/07352689.2011.554358
Jarvis, D.I., T. Hodgkin, B.R. Sthapit, C. Fadda, and I. LopezNoriega, 2011. An heuristic framework for identifying
multiple ways of supporting the conservation and use of
traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production
system. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 30(1--2):125--176.
Jeyaratnam J. 1990. Acute pesticide poisoning: a major
global health problem. World Health Stat Q 43 (3):139–
144. [PubMed: 2238694] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/2238694
Johns, T. and Maundu, P. (2006) Forest biodiversity, nutrition
and population health in market-oriented food systems.
Unasylva 57: 34–40
Johnson R.C. (1996). “Borrelia”. In Baron S., et al. Baron’s
Medical Microbiology (4th ed.). University of Texas Medical
Branch.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 291

Johnston, AE. 1986. Soil organic-matter, eﬀects on soils and
crops. Soil Use Management 2 (3): 97–105.
Jones, K.M., Specio, S.E., Shrestha, P., Brown, K.H. and
Allen, L.H. 2005. Nutrition knowledge and practices,
and consumption of vitamin a rich plants by rural Nepali
participants and nonparticipants in a kitchen-garden
program. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 26(2): 198–208.
Jurewicz J., Hanke W. 2008. Prenatal and childhood exposure
to pesticides and neurobehavioral development: review of
epidemiological studies. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 21
(2): 121–32.
Kahane, R., Hodgkin, T., Jaenicke, H., Hoogendoorn,
C., Hermann, M., Keatinge, J. D. H., d’Arros Hughes, J.,
Padulosi S., and N. Looney (2013). Agrobiodiversity for
food security, health and income. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
DOI 10.1007/s13593–013–0147–8.
Kearns, C., Inouye, D. and N. Waser (1998). Endangered
mutualisms: the conservation of plant–pollinator
interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 29, 83–112.
Kellogg RL, Nehring R, Grube A, Goss DW, and Plotkin
S. 2000. Environmental indicators of pesticide leaching
and runoﬀ from farm ﬁelds. United States Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/
technical/?cid=nrcs143_014053 (28 July 2014)
Khoury, C.K., Bjorkman, A.D., Dempewolf, H., RamirezVillegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Riesenberg, L.H. and P.C.
Struik (2014). Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies
and the implications for food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
online.
Kohler, H. -R and R. Triebskorn (2013). Wildlife Ecotoxicology
of Pesticides: Can We Track Eﬀects to the Population Level
and Beyond? Science 341 (6147): 759.
Klein, A.M., Steﬀan–Dewenter, I. and T. Tscharntke (2003)
Fruit set of highland coﬀee increases with the diversity of
pollinating bees. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1518), 955–961.
Klein, A.M., Vaissiere, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steﬀan-Dewenter,
I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C. and T. Tscharntke (2007)
Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world
crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
274(1608), 303–313
Knobeloch L., Salna B., Hogan A., Postle J., Anderson H. 2000.
Blue Babies and Nitrate-Contaminated Well Water. Environ
Health Perspect 108:675–678. http://www.co.portage.wi.us/
Groundwater/undrstnd/blbaby.htm (29 July 2014)
Koh L.P. (2007). Potential habitat and biodiversity losses
from intensiﬁed biodiesel feedstock production. Conservation
Biology, 21: 1373–1375.
Kothari, A. and Cooney, R., Hunter, D., McKinnon, K.,
Muller, E., Nelson, F., Oli, K., Pandey, S., Rasheed, T.
and Vavrova, L. (2014) ‘Chapter 25, Resource Use and
Development’ in Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A.,
Feary, S. and Pulsford, I. (eds) Protected Area Governance
and Management, Australian National University Press,
Canberra, Australia.

Kremen, C. and A. Miles (2012) Ecosystem services in
biologically diversiﬁed versus conventional farming systems:
Beneﬁts, externalities and trade-oﬀs. Ecology and Society
17(4): 40.
Kremen, C., Iles, A. and C. Bacon. (2012). Diversiﬁed farming
systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to
modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society, 17(4): 44.
Lake R. et al. (2012) Climate change and food security:
health impacts in developed countries. Environmental Health
Perspectives 120: 1520–1526
Lamberth, C.; Jeanmart, S.; Luksch, T.; Plant, A. 2013. Current
Challenges and Trends in the Discovery of Agrochemicals.
Science 341 (6147): 742–746. doi:10.1126/science.1237227.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6147/742 (28 July
2014)
Lee, K.H., Isenhart, T.M. and R.C. Schultz (2003). Sediment
and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian
buﬀer. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 58(1), 1–8.
Letourneau, D. K., & Burrows, B. E. (Eds.). (2010). Genetically
engineered organisms: assessing environmental and human
health eﬀects. CRC press.
Lin B. (2011) Resilience in agriculture through crop
diversiﬁcation: adaptive management for environmental
change. Bioscience 61: 183–193.
Lira R. et al 2009. The eﬀect of climate change on the
geographic distribution of Mexican wild relatives of
domesticated Cucurbitaceae. Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution 56: 691–703.
Lobell, D. B., Cassman, K. G., and Field, C. B. (2009). Crop
yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 179.
Lockie, S. And Carpenter, D. (2010) Agriculture, Biodiversity
and Markets. Earthscan.
Lotter DW, Seidel R, and Liebhardt W. 2003. The performance
of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme
climate year. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18
(03): 146–154.
Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden. Saving Water:
From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food
Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI, 2008
MA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Malaza, M.,and P.L. Howard, (2003). Modernization and
gender dynamics in the loss of agrobiodiversity in Swaziland’s
food system. Women and plants: Gender relations in biodiversity
management and conservation, 243–257.
Maus, C. (2003). Safety of imidacloprid seed dressing to
honey bees: a comprehensive overview and compilation of
the current state of knowledge. Bulleting of Insectology 56:
51–58.
McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R.
(2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change,
and health. The lancet, 370(9594), 1253–1263.

292 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Micronutrient Initiative (2009) Investing in the Future: A
united call to action on vitamin and mineral deﬁciencies
[www.unitedcalltoaction.org]
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Ecosystems
and Human Well-being – Health Synthesis.
Mitchell, M.G., Bennett, E.M. and A. Gonzalez (2014). Forest
fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem
services. Journal of Applied Ecology. online.
Myers S. S., Zanobetti, A., Kloog, I., Huybers, P., Leakey, A. D.,
Bloom, A. J., et al. (2014) Increasing CO2 threatens human
nutrition. Nature 510 (7503), 139–142.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da
Fonseca, G. A.and J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for
conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853–858.
Myhre G. and D. Shindell (2013). Anthopogenic and Natural
Radiative Forcing. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Cambridge UK. 124 pp.
National Park Service. US Department of the Interior. (Page
last updated in 2014). Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Park: Air quality – Airborne synthetic chemicals. Nps.gov.
http://www.nps.gov/seki/naturescience/air_synthchem.
htm (28 July 2014)
Naug, D. (2009) Nutritional stress due to habitat loss
may explain recent honeybee colony collapse. Biological
Conservation 142.10: 2369–2372
New Zealand Nutrition Survey (2011) (http://
w w w. s c i e n c e m e d i a c e n t r e . c o . n z / 2 0 1 1 / 0 9 / 1 5 /
new-zealand-diet-and-nutrition-survey-experts-respond/)
Nielsen, J., Haselow, N., Osei, A. and Talukder, Z. (2013)
Diversifying diets: using agricultural biodiversity to improve
nutrition and health in Asia. In: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D.
Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using
Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues
in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK. pp 257–269.
Notter, D. R. (1999). The importance of genetic diversity in
livestock populations of the future. Journal of Animal Science,
77(1), 61–69.
Ohio State University. 1999. Evergreens Help Block
Spread Of Pesticide From Crop Fields. ScienceDaily.
ScienceDaily, 19 November 1999. www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/1999/11/991119075237.htm. (30 July 2014)
Oliver, D.M., Heathwaite, L., Haygarth, P.M. and C.D. Clegg
(2005). Transfer of Escherichia coli to water from drained and
undrained grassland after grazing. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 34 (2005), pp. 918–925
Osborne, L. L. and D. A. Kovacic, (1993). Riparian vegetated
buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream
management. Freshwater biology, 29(2), 243–258.

Padulosi S., D. Hunter, A. Jarvis and V. Heywood (2011)
Underutilized crops and climate change – current status and
outlook. In, Crop Adaptation to Climate Change (S. Yadav, B.
Redden, J.L. Hatﬁeld and H. Lotze-Campen, eds). WileyBlackwell, Ames Iowa, USA. pp. 507–521.
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E.,
Kurz, W. A., ... and Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persistent
carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333(6045),
988–993.
Papendick RI, Elliott LF, Dahlgren RB.1986. Environmental
consequences of modern production agriculture: How can
alternative agriculture address these issues and concerns?
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Volume 1, Issue
1, Pages 3–10. http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/AJAA/AJAA_1.
htm (28 July 2014)
Patz, J.A., Daszak, P., Tabor, G.M., et al. (2004). “Unhealthy
landscapes: Policy recommendations on land use change and
infectious disease emergence” Environ. Health Perspect. 112
(10): 1092–98.
Pejchar, L., & Mooney, H. A. (2009). Invasive species,
ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends in ecology
& evolution, 24(9), 497–504.
Pereira, H.M. et al. 2005. Condition and trends of ecosystem
services and biodiversity. In Capistrano, Doris et al. eds.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, USA, pp.
.: Island Press, pp. 171–203.
Phipps, R. H., & Park, J. R. (2002). Environmental beneﬁts of
genetically modiﬁed crops: global and European perspectives
on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and
Feed Sciences, 11(1), 1–18.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009) Food security: deﬁnition and
measurement. Food Security 1: 5–7.
Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P.,
Schweiger and W.E. Kunin (2010). Global pollinator declines:
trends impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
25(6): 345–353.
Power, A. G., and A. S. Flecker (1998). Agroecosystems and
biodiversity. Proceedings of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird
Center cacao conference. Available at: http://nationalzoo.
si.edu/conservationandscience/migratorybirds/research/
cacao/papers.cfm
Prescott-Allen, R and C Prescott-Allen, 1990. How Many
Plants Feed the World? Conservation Biology, 4; 365–374.
Pretty, J., and Z. P. Bharucha, 2014. Sustainable intensiﬁcation
in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 114 (8): 1571–1596.
Priyadarshi A, Khuder SA, Schaub EA, Shrivastava S. 2000.
A meta-analysis of Parkinson’s disease and exposure to
pesticides. Neurotoxicology. 21(4):435–40. http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11022853

Padulosi S, Hodgkin T, Williams JT, Haq N (2002)
Underutilized crops: trends, challenges and opportunities in
the 21st century. In: Engels JMM, Ramanatha Rao V, Brown
AHD, Jackson MT (eds) Managing plant genetic resources.
CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 323–338.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 293

Pudasaini, R., Sthapit, S., Suwal, R. Sthapit, B. (2013) The
role of integrated home gardens and local, neglected and
underutilized plant species in food security in Nepal and
meeting the Millennium Development Goal 1. In: Fanzo, J.
and Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food
and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition
and Health. Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
pp 257–269.
Pushpakumara et al (2012) A review of research on home
gardens in Sri Lanka: the status, importance and future
perspective. Tropical Agriculturalist, 160: 55–125
Rahman, A.K.A. (1989) Freshwater Fishes of Bangladesh,
Zoological Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka
Ramankutty, N. and J. Foley (1998) Characterizing patterns
of global land use: An analysis of global croplands data, Global
Biogeochem. Cycles, 124, 667–685.
Ramankutty, N. and J. Foley (1999). Estimating historical
changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 13(4): 997–1027.
Randall C. (ed.), et al. 2013. National Pesticide Applicator
Certiﬁcation Core Manual. National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation.
Washington DC. 224 p. http://www.nasda.org/9381/
Foundation/11379/11383/6684.aspx (24 July 2014).
Ratnieks, F. L., and Carreck, N. L. (2010). Clarity on honey
bee collapse?. Science, 327(5962), 152–153.
Reimer, A.P. and Prokopy, L.S. (2012). Environmental
attitudes and drift reduction behavior among commercial
pesticide applicators in a US agricultural landscape. Journal
of Environmental Management, 30 (113): 361–9.

Rudel, T. K., Coomes, O. T., Moran, E., Achard, F., Angelsen,
A., Xu, J. And Lambin, E. (2005). Forest transitions: towards a
global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental
Change, 15(1), 23–31.
Sampson, R.N.l. et al. (2005) Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, Chapter 9: Timber, Fuel, and Fiber. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment
Sanborn M., Bassil K., Vakil C., Kerr K., Ragan K. 2012.
Systematic Review of Pesticide Health Eﬀects. Ontario College
of Family Physicians (OCFP). 83 p. http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/
pesticides-paper/2012-systematic-review-of-pesticide.pdf
Sanborn M, Kerr KJ, Sanin LH, Cole DC, Bassil KL, Vakil
C. 2007. Non-cancer health eﬀects of pesticides: systematic
review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam Physician
53 (10): 1712–20. PMC 2231436. PMID 17934035. http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231436/ (24 July
2014)
Sanborn M., Cole D., Kerr K., Vakil C., Sanin L.H., Bassil
K. 2004. Pesticides Literature Review: Systematic Review
of Pesticide Human Health Eﬀects. The Ontario College of
Family Physicians. Toronto. 177 pp. Available at: https://
www.premierinc.com/epp/downloads/01-systematic-reviewcanada-pesticides.pdf
Sanchez, P., Swaminathan, M.S., Dobie, P. and N. Yuksel. UN
Millennium Project 2005. Halving Hunger: It can be done.
Task Forces on Hunger.
Scherr, S. J. and McNeely, J.A., 2008. Biodiversity
conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new
paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
B (2008) 363, 477–494.

Reynolds M.P. and Ortiz, R. (2010) Adapting crops to climate
change: a summary. In, Climate change and Crop Production,
Edited M.P. Reynolds, 1–8. CABI

Schindler D. W., Hecky R.E. 2009. Eutrophication: More
Nitrogen Data Needed. Science 324 (5928): 721–722. DOI:
10.1126/science.324_721b http://www.sciencemag.org/
content/324/5928/721.2.full%20-%20R1

Richards, J. F. (1990) Land transformation, The Earth as
Transformed by Human ActionB. L. Turner, et al. 163–178,
Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.

Scoones et al. (1992) Hidden Harvest: Wild Foods in
Agricultural Systems. IIED, UK

Ricketts, T.H. (2004) Tropical forest fragments enhance
pollinator activity in nearby coﬀee crops. Conservation Biology,
18(5), pp.1262–1271.
Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J. Steﬀan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C.,
Bogdanski, A., Gemmil-Herren, B., Greenleaf, S.S., Klein
A.-M., Mayﬁeld, M.M., Morandin, L.A., Ochieng, A. and B.F.
Viana (2008). Landscape eﬀects on crop pollination services:
are there general patterns? Ecology letters, 11(5), pp.499–515.
Robertson, C. J. (1956) The expansion of the arable area,
Scott. Geogr. Mag., 721, 1–20,
Rockstrom J. et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity.
Nature 461, 472–475
Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Yang, X. B., Epstein, P. R., and
Chivian, E. (2001). Climate change and extreme weather
events; implications for food production, plant diseases, and
pests. Global change and human health, 2(2), 90–104.
Rosin, C., Stock, P. and Campbell, H. (2012) Food Systems
Failure: The Global Food Crisis and the Future of Agriculture.
Earthscan from Routledge

Securing Soil Carbon Beneﬁts. Available at: http://www.unep.
org/yearbook/2014/PDF/chapt9.pdf
Self J.R. and Waskom R.M. 2013. Nitrates in Drinking
Water. Crop Series, Soil. Fact Sheet No. 0.517. Colorado State
University Extension, USA. 2p. http://www.ext.colostate.
edu/pubs/crops/00517.pdf
Shiklomanov, I. A., (Ed.), Assessment of Water Resources and
Water Availability in the World, Comprehensive Assessment
of the Freshwater Resources of the World, Stockholm
Environment Institute, Stockholm, 1997.
Shvidenko, A., Barber, C.V.and R. Persson (2005) Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, Chapter : Forest and Woodland
Systems. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Smale M, Hazell P, Hodgkin T, Fowler C (2009) Do we have
an adequate global strategy for securing the biodiversity of
major food crops? In: Kontoleon A, Pascual U, Smale M (eds)
Agrobiodiversity conservation and economic development.
Routledge, Abingdon, pp 40–50.

294 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Smith, P. and M. Bustamante (2013) Mitigation of Climate
Change: Chapter 11 Agriculture, Forest and Other Land Uses.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge,UK.

Tyler Miller G. 2004. Sustaining the Earth: An Integrated
Approach. Thomson/Brooks/Cole. pp.  211–216.
ISBN 978–0-534–40088–0.

Steﬀen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E.,
Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science,
1259855.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Pesticides:
Health and Safety. National Assessment of the Worker
Protection Workshop #3. Avaiable at: http://www.epa.gov/
oppfead1/safety/newnote/workshop3.htm (24 July 2014)

Stewart, W.M.; Dibb, D.W.; Johnston, A.E.; Smyth, T.J. 2005.
The Contribution of Commercial Fertilizer Nutrients to
Food Production. Agronomy Journal 97: 1–6. doi:10.2134/
agronj2005.0001. Available at: https://www.agronomy.org/
publications/aj/abstracts/97/1/0001(29 July 2014)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Setting
tolerances for pesticide residues in foods. Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/stprf.htm

Stewart, C. N., Halfhill, M. D., & Warwick, S. I. (2003).
Transgene introgression from genetically modiﬁed crops to
their wild relatives. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4(10), 806–817.
Stoate, C., Boatman, N.D., Borralho, R.J., Carvalho, C.,
De Snoo, G.R. and P. Eden (2001). Ecological impacts of
arable intensiﬁcation in Europe. Journal of environmental
management, 63(4), 337–365.
Stockholm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Available at: http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/
convention_text/UNEP-POPS-COP-CONVTEXT-FULL.
English.PDF (24 July 2014)
Sunderland, K. and F. Samu (2000). Eﬀects of agricultural
diversification on the abundance, distribution, and
pest control potential of spiders: a review. Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata, 95(1), 1–13.

UNEP 2014. UNEP Year Book 2014 emerging issues update.
Chapter 1: Excess Nitrogen in the Environment. Available at:
http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2014/PDF/chapt1.pdf
UNEP 2014. UNEP Year Book 2014 emerging issues update.
Chapter 9:
UNEP. 2013. UNEP year book 2013: Emerging issues in our
global environment. Chapter: Reaching for the 2020 Goal:
The need for better information and sound management to
minimize chemical risks. Available at: http://www.unep.org/
yearbook/2013/pdf/Minimizing_chemical_risks.pdf
UNEP. 2012. UNEP Year Book 2012: The Beneﬁts of Soil
Carbon: Managing soils for multiple economic, societal and
environmental beneﬁts. Available at: http://www.unep.org/
yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_2.pdf

Thies, C. and T. Tscharntke (1999). Landscape structure and
biological control in agroecosystems. Science, 285(5429),
893–895.

UNEP. 2005. Ridding the world of POPS: A guide to the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants. United Nations Environment Programme.
Switzerland. 17 p. http://www.pops.int/documents/
guidance/beg_guide.pdf (24 July 2014)

Tilman, D., Balzer C., Hill, J. and B.L. Befort (2011)
Global food demand and the sustainable intensiﬁcation of
agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108: 20260–4.

United States Census Bureau, USCB (2013) U.S. Census
Bureau – World POPClock Projection. July 2012–July 2013
data

Tilman, D. , Fargione, J., Wolﬀ, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A.,
Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.H., Simberloﬀ, D.
and D. Swackhamer (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven
global environmental change. Science, 292: 281–284

United States Department of Agriculture, USDA (2002).
Statistics of grain and feed Agricultural Statistics. Washington,
D.C: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) pp 1–47 (www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_
Statistics/2002/02_ch1.pdf

Tirado M.C. et al. (2010) Climate change and food safety: a
review. Food Research International 43: 1745 – 1765
Tisdell, C. (2003). Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal
genetic diversity: analysis and assessment. Ecological
Economics, 45(3), 365–376.
Toledo, A. And Burlingame, B. (2006) Biodiversity and
nutrition: a common path toward global food security and
sustainable development. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis 19: 477–483.
Tooker, J F. and S. D Frank (2012). Genotypically diverse
cultivar mixtures for insect pest management and increased
crop yields. J of Applied Ecology. 49:974–985.
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L.,
Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., ... and Whitbread, A. (2012). Global
food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of
agricultural intensiﬁcation. Biological Conservation, 151(1),
53–59.

Walley F, Taylor A and Lupwayi N. 2006. Herbicide eﬀects on
pulse crop nodulation and nitrogen ﬁxation. FarmTech 2006
Proceedings 121–123.
Wellings, C.R., Wright, D.G., Keiper, F. and R. Loughman
(2003). First detection of wheat stripe rust in Western
Australia – possible means of entry and implications for plant
quarantine. Plant Pathology, 36: 239–241
Westphal, C., Steﬀan, Dewenter, I. and T. Tscharntke (2003).
Mass ﬂowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a
landscape scale. Ecology Letters, 6(11), 961–965.
Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D. and C.
David (2009) Agroecology as a science, a movement and a
practice. A review. Agron Sustain. Dev. 29, 503–515.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 295

Whitehorn, P. O’Connor S., Wackers F.L., Goulson D. 2012.
Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth
and Queen Production. Science (20): 351–352. http://www.
sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1555.summary (28 July
2014)
WHO 2012. Obesity and Overweight. WHO Fact Sheet No
311. May 2012. WHO, Geneva.
WHO Global malaria programme: World Malaria Report 2014
http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world_malaria_
report_2014/wmr-2014-no-proﬁles.pdf?ua=1
Wilby, A., Mitchell, C., Blumenthal, D., Daszak P., Friedman,
C.S., Jutro, P., Mazumder, A., Prieur-Richard, A-H., DesprezLoustau, M.-L., Sharma, M. and M.B. Thomas (2009).
Biodiversity, food provision and human health. In Biodiversity
change and human health: From ecosystem services to spread
of disease. (Eds) Osvaldo E. Sala, Laura A. Meyerson, Camille
Parmesan. Island Press, Washington, USA.
World Watch Institute (2009) Biofuel Production Up
Despite Economic Downturn Vital Signs. Available
at : htt p://vitalsig ns.worldwatch.org/vs - trend/
biofuel-production-despiteeconomic-downturn
Wratten, S.D., Gillespie, M., Decourtye, A., Mader, E., and N.
Desneux (2012). Pollinator habitat enhancement: beneﬁts
to other ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 159:112–122.
Yadav, S., Hunter, D. Redden, R. and Yadav, D.K. (2014)
Impact of climate change on agriculture production, food
security and strategies for mitigation and adaptation. In Crop
Wild Relatives and Climate Change (Redden, R. et al. eds).
Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
Zhu, Y., Chen, H., Fan, J., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Chen, J., Fan, J. X.,
Yang, S., Hu, L., Leung, H., Mew, T. W., Teng, P. S., Wang, Z.,
and Mundt, C. C. 2000. Genetic diversity and disease control
in rice. Nature 406: 718– 722. 

Chapter 6
h t t p : / / w w w. c o n a b . g o v. b r / O l a l a C M S / u p l o a d s /
arquivos/14_09_15_16_03_05_artigo_evolucao_do_paa_2.
pdf
h t t p : / / w w w. c o n a b . g o v. b r / O l a l a C M S / u p l o a d s /
arquivos/15_03_23_15_42_09_sumario_executivo_2014_
revisado.pdf
A. S. Huang, L. Tanudjaja, D. Lum. Journal of Food
Composition and Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 2, Jun 1999, pp.
147–151.
Aberoumand, A. 2009. Nutritional evaluation of edible
Portulaca oleracia as plant food. Food Analytical Methods, 2:
204–207.
Abu-Basutu, K. (2013). The contribution of wild foods to food
security in the face of climate change and HIV/AIDS (Doctoral
dissertation, MSc thesis. Rhodes University, Grahamstown,
South Africa).

Achigan-Dako, E. G., Sogbohossou, O. E., and Maundu, P.
(2014). Current knowledge on Amaranthus spp.: research
avenues for improved nutritional value and yield in leafy
amaranths in sub-Saharan Africa. Euphytica, 197(3), 303–317.
AFROFOODS (2009) Call for action from the door of return
for food renaissance in Africa. 2009. Available at: http://www.
fao.org/ﬁleadmin/templates/food_composition/documents/
pdf/AFROFOOD_CALL_and_APPEL.pdf
Akroﬁ, S., Price, L.L. and Struik, P.C. HIV and Severity of
seasonal household food-related coping behaviours in rural
Ghana. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 51: 148–175.
Agriculture-Nutrition Community of Practice (Ag2Nut CoP)
(2013) Key Recommendations for Improving Nutrition
through Agriculture and Food Systems. Avaialble at: http://
www.fao.org/3/a-mm215e.pdf
Allen T.; Prosperi P.; Cogill B.; and G. Flichman.  2014.
Agricultural Biodiversity, Social-Ecological Systems and
Sustainable Diets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 73;
498–508
Amuna, P., and Zotor, F. B. (2008). Epidemiological and
nutrition transition in developing countries: impact on
human health and development. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 67(01), 82–90.
Anderson, E.N., “Food cultures: Linking People to Landscapes”
Pilgrim, S., & Pretty, J. (2010). Nature and culture: rebuilding
lost connections. Earthscan
Andersen, R. et al., 2014. Dietary eﬀects of introducing
school meals based on the New Nordic Diet – a randomised
controlled trial in Danish children. The OPUS School Meal
Study. The British journal of nutrition, (4), pp.1–10.
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth,
NJ., Bauch, S., Borner, J., Smith-Hall, C., and Wunder, S.
(2014) Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global
comparative analysis. World Development
Arimond, M. and Ruel, M.T. (2004). Dietary diversity is
associated with child nutritional status: evidence from 11
demographic and health surveys. Journal of Nutrition, 134:
2579–2585.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014, Sept.) 4727.0.55.003 –
Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Survey: Biomedical Results, 2012–13. Canberra.
B4FN (2014). Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition home page
http://www.b4fn.org/
Bach-Faig A, Berry EM, Lairon D, Reguant J, Trichopoulou
A, Dernini S, Medina FX, Battino M, Belahsen R, Miranda
G, Serra-Majem L; Mediterranean Diet Foundation
Expert Group (2011). Mediterranean diet pyramid today.
Science and cultural updates. Public Health Nutr. 2011
Dec;14(12A):2274–84. doi: 10.1017/S1368980011002515
Barker, B., Stanley, L., and Lopez, A. (2007). The burden of
disease and injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
2003. Centre for Burden of Disease and Cost-Eﬀectiveness,
School of Population Health, University of Queensland.
Barrett, C.B. Measuring food insecurity. Science. 327 12
February 2010. DOI: 10.1126/science.1182768 , 825.

296 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Barnes, K.K., Collins, T.A., Dion, S., Reynolds, H., Riess, S.M.,
Stanzyk, A.,
Wolfe, A., Lonergan, S.M., Boettcher, P., Charrondiere, R. and
Stadlmayr, B. (2012) Importance of cattle biodiversity and
its inﬂuence on the nutrient composition of beef. Animal
Frontiers 2; 54–60
Barthel, S., Crumley, C., & Svedin, U. (2013). Bio-cultural
refugia  – Safeguarding diversity of practices for food
security and biodiversity. Global Environment Change, 23(5),
1142–1152.
Batal, M. and Hunter, E. (2007) Traditional Lebanese recipes
based on wild plants: an answer to diet simpliﬁcation? Food
and Nutrition Bulletin 28 (2), S303-S311
Becquey, E., Delpeuch, F., Konaté, A.M. Delsol, H., Lange,
M., Zoungrana, M. and Martin-Prevel, Y. 2012. Seasonality
of the dietary dimension of household food security in urban
Burkina Faso. British Journal of Nutrition, 107: 1860–1870.
Bere, E. & Brug, J., 2009. Towards health-promoting and
environmentally friendly regional diets – a Nordic example.
Public health nutrition, 12(1), pp.91–6.
Bharucha, Z. and Pretty, J. 2010. The roles and values of wild
foods in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B, 365: 2913–2926.
BIP (2013) Biodiversity Indicators Partnership > Homepage.
Retrieved 13 December 2013, from http://www.bipindicators.
net/
Black, R. E., Allen, L. H., Bhutta, Z. A., Caulﬁeld, L. E.,
de Onis, M., Ezzati, M., et al. (2008). Maternal and child
undernutrition: Global and regional exposures and health
consequences. The Lancet, 371(9608), 243–260.
Blasbalg, T. L., Wispelwey, B., and Deckelbaum, R. J. (2011).
Econutrition and utilization of food-based approaches for
nutritional health. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 32(1 SUPPL.),
S4-S13
Bloom, D.E., Caﬁero, E.T., Jané-Llopis, E., Abrahams-Gessel,
S., Bloom, L.R., Fathima, S., Feigl, A.B., Gaziano, T., Mowaﬁ,
M., Pandya, A., Prettner, K., Rosenberg, L., Seligman, B.,
Stein, A.Z., and Weinstein, C. (2011). The Global Economic
Burden of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: World
Economic Forum.
Boedecker, J., Termote, C., Assogbadjo, A.C., Van Damme,
P. and Lachat, C. (2014) Dietary contribution of wild edible
plants to women’s diets in the buﬀer zone around the Lama
forest, Benin – an underutilized potential. Food Security
Boelee, E., S. Atapattu, J. Barron, P. Bindraban, S. W. Bunting,
D. Coates, K. Descheemaeker, N. Eriyagama, M. Finlayson,
and L. Gordon. (2011). Ecosystems for water and food
security. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme;
Colombo: International Water Management Institute.
Bonin CL, Tracy BF. Diversity inﬂuences forage yield and
stability in perennial prairie plant mixtures. Agric Ecosyst
Environ.; 162:1–7 (2012)
Brock JF, Hansen JDL, Howe EE, Pretorius PD, Daval JGA,
Hendricks RG (1955) Kwashiorkor and protein malnutrition.
A dietary therapeutic trial. The Lancet 1955;2: 355–60.

Burkle LA, Marlin JC, Knight TM. Plant-pollinator
interactions over 120 years: Loss of species, co-occurrence,
and function. Science 2013; 339: 1611–5.
Burlingame B (2014) Grand challenges in nutrition and
environmental sustainability. Front. Nutr. 1:3. doi: 10.3389/
fnut.2014.00003 Available at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/
Journal/10.3389/fnut.2014.00003/full#sthash.rOQTlIRN.
Qp3MxHAf.dpuf
Burlingame, B. and Toledo, A. (Eds) (2006). Special Issue:
Biodiversity and Nutrition. Journal of Food Composition
and Analysis 19, 6–7, pages 477–770 (September-November
2006).
Burlingame, B., Charrondiere, U.R., Mouille, B. (2009). Food
composition is fundamental to the cross-cutting initiative
on biodiversity for food and nutrition. Journal of Food
Composition and Analysis 22, 5: 361–365.
Cadotte, M.W., Dinnage, R., Tilman, D. Phylogenetic diversity
promotes ecosystem stability. Ecology 93, S223–S233 (2012)
Caluwé E. De, Halamová K. and Damme P. van (2010)
Adansonia digitata L. – A review of traditional uses,
phytochemistry and pharmacology. Afrika Focus 23 (1):
11–51.
Clarke, S. F., Murphy, E. F., Nilaweera, K., Ross, P. R.,
Shanahan, F., O’Toole, P. W., & Cotter, P. D. (2012). The gut
microbiota and its relationship to diet and obesity: new
insights. Gut microbes, 3(3), 186–202.
CBD. 2006. Agricultural biodiversity: A cross-cutting initiative
on biodiversity for food and nutrition.  https://www.cbd.int/
decision/cop/default.shtml?id=11037 (accessed August 14,
2014).
CBD. 2004.  COP 7 decision VII/32. Seventh Meeting
of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 9  – 20
February 2004.  http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.
shtml?id=7769 
CBD. 2006. COP 8 Decision VIII/23, Eighth Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil, 20 – 31 March 2006. http://www.
cbd.int/agro/food-nutrition/default.shtml
Challe, J.F.X. and Price, L.L. 2009. Endangered edible orchids
and vulnerable gatherers in the context of HIV/AIDS in the
Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine, 5: 41. Online: http://www.ethnobiomed.
com/contents/5/1/41.
Chaplin-Kramer R, Dombeck E, Gerber J, et al. Global
malnutrition overlaps with pollinator-dependent
micronutrient production. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 2014; 281(1794).
Charrondiere, U.R., Stadlmayr, B., Rittenschober, D., Mouille,
B., Nilsson, E., Medhammar, E., Olango, T., Eisenwagen, S.,
Persijn, D., Ebanks, K., Nowak, V., Du, J.; Burlingame, B.
(2012). FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for
Biodiversity. Food Chemistry 140 (2013) 408–412.
Cherfas, J (2006) Kenyans ﬂock back to traditional leafy
vegetables. Geneﬂow. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 297

Clemente, J.C. et al (2015) The microbiome of uncontacted
Amerindians. Science
Coad, L., Abernethy, K., Balmford, A., Manica, A., Airey,
L. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2010. Distribution and use of
income from bushmeat in a rural village, central Gabon.
Conservation Biology, 24: 1510–1518.
Conchedda, G., Lambin, E.F. and Mayaux, P. 2011. between
land and sea: livelihoods and environmental changes in
mangrove ecosystems of Senegal. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 101: 1259–1284.
Cotty, P.J. and Jaime-Garcia, R. (2007) Inﬂuences of climate
on aﬂatoxin producing fungi and aﬂatoxin contamination.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 119; 109–115
Cunningham, A.B. 2011. Non-timber forest products
and markets: lessons for export-orientated enterprise
development from Africa. In Shackleton, S.E., Shackleton,
C.M., and Shanley, P. (eds). Non-timber forest products in the
global context. Springer. Heidelberg. pp. 83–106.
Da Costa, M.dJ., Lopes, M., Ximenes, A., Ferreira, A.dR.,
Spyckerelle, L., Williams, R., Nesbitt, H. and Erskine, W. 2013.
Household food security in Timor-Leste. Food Security, 5:
83–94.
Dabalen, A. and Paul. S. 2014. Eﬀect of conﬂict on dietary
diversity: evidence from Côte d”ivoire. World Development,
58: 143–158.
Davies, G. 2002. Bushmeat and international development.
Conservation Biology, 16: 587–589.
Davis AS, Hill JD, Chase CA, Johanns AM, Liebman M.
Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity,
profitability and environmental health.  PLoS ONE
7(10):e47149 (2012)
Deckelbaum, R.J. (2011) Econutrition: integrating food-based
human nutrition with ecology and agrobiodiversity. Food and
Nutrition Bulletin 32; p.S3
Deckelbaum, R.J., Palm, C., Mutuo, P., and DeClerck, F.A.J.
(2006) Econutrition: implementation models from the
Millenium Villages Project in Africa. Food and Nutrition
Bulletin 27; 335–342
DeClerck, F.A.J. and Negreros-Castillio, P. (2000) Plant species
of traditional Mayan homegardenso Mexico as analogsfor
multistrata agroforests. Agroforestry Systems, 48; 303–317
DeClerck, F.A.J., Fanzo, J., Palm, C., Remans, R. Ecological
approaches to human nutrition. Food Nutr. Bull. 32, S4–13
(2011)
De Clerck, F. (2013) Harnessing biodiversity: from diets
to landscapes. in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and
Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural
Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues in
Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
Delzenne, N. M., & Cani, P. D. (2011). Interaction between
obesity and the gut microbiota: relevance in nutrition. Annual
review of nutrition, 31, 15–31.

De Merode, E., Homeoowd, K. and Cowlishaw, G. 2004. The
value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households in
extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological
Conservation, 118: 573–581.
Dernini S., Meybeck A., Burlingame B., Gitz V., Lacirignola C.,
Debs, P., Capone R., El Bilali, H. Developing a methodological
approach for assessing the sustainability of diets: The
Mediterranean Diet as a case study. New Medit (2013)
3/2013: 28–36.
Devereux, S. and Longhurst, R. 2010 Incorporating
seasonality into agricultural project design and learning. IDS
Bulletin, 41: 88–95.
Dogan, Y. 2012. Traditionally used wild edible greens in
the Aegean Region of Turkey. Acta Societatis Botanicorum
Poloniae, 81: 329–342.
Donati, K., Taylor, C. and Pearson, C.J. (2013) Local food and
dietary diversity: farmers markets and community gardens
in Melbourne, Australia in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. Borelli,
T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using
Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues
in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
Dora, C., Haines, A., Balbus, J., Fletcher, E., Adair-Rohani, H.,
Alabaster, G., Hossain, R., de Onis, M., Branca, F. and Neira,
M. (2015) Indicators linking health and sustainability in the
post-2015 development agenda. The Lancet 385, 380–391
Drimie, S. 2003. HIV/AIDS and land: Case studies from
Kenya, Lesotho, and South Africa. Development Southern
Africa, 20: 647–658.
Dulloo, E., Hunter, D. and Leaman, D.L. (2014) Plant diversity
in addressing food, nutrition and medicinal needs. In, Novel
Plant Bioresources: Application in Food, Medicine and Cosmetics
(A. Garib-Fakim, ed). Wiley-Blackwell, UK p. 1–21
Dweba, T.P. and Mearns, M.A. 2011. Conserving indigenous
knowledge as the key to the current and future use of
traditional vegetables. International Journal of Information
Management, 31: 564–571.
Edderai, D. and Dame, M. 2006. A census of the commercial
bushmeat market in Yauonde, Cameroon. Oryx, 40: 472–475.
Egeland, G. M., Harrison, G. G., (2013). Health disparities:
promoting Indigenous Peoples’ health through traditional
food systems and self-determination. In Indigenous peoples’
food systems and well-being: interventions and policies for healthy
communities. FAO, Rome.
Eilat-Adar, S., Jiaqiong, X., Zephier, E., O’Leary, V.,
Howard, B.V., Resnick, H.E. (2008). Adherence to Dietary
Recommendations for Saturated Fat, Fiber, and Sodium
Is Low in American Indians and Other U.S. Adults with
Diabetes. Journal of Nutrition 138: 1699 – 1704.
Eilers EJ, Kremen C, Greenleaf SS, Garber AK, Klein A-M.
Contribution of pollinator-mediated crops to nutrients in the
human food supply. PLoS ONE 2011; 6(6): 6.
Ellis A, M, Myers S, S., Ricketts T, H. Do pollinators contribute
to nutritional health? PLoS ONE 2015; 10(1): 17.

298 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Elyse Messer, A. (2015) World crop diversity survives from
peri-urban to remote rural locations http://news.psu.edu/
story/344861/2015/02/13/research/world-crop-diversitysurvives-peri-urban-remote-rural-locations
Englberger, L., Aalbersberg, W., Ravi, P., Bonnin, E., Marks,
G.C., Fitzgerald, M.H., and Elymore, J. (2003a) ‘Further
analyses on Micronesian banana, taro, breadfruit and other
foods for provitamin A carotenoids and minerals’, Journal of
Food Composition and Analysis, vol 16, no 2, pp.219–236.
Englberger, L., Aalbersberg, W., Fitzgerald, M.H., Marks, G.C.,
and Chand, K. (2003b). ‘Provitamin A carotenoid content of
diﬀerent cultivars of edible pandanus fruit tectorius’, Journal
of Food Composition and Analysis, 16, 2: 237–247.
Englberger, L., Schierle, J., Marks, G.C., and Fitzgerald, M.H.
(2003c) ‘Micronesian banana, taro, and other foods: newly
recognized sources of provitamin A and other carotenoids’,
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, vol 16, no 1,
pp.3–19.
Englberger, L., Marks, G. C., and Fitzgerald, M. H. (2003d)
Insights on food and nutrition in the Federated States of
Micronesia: a review of the literature. Public Health Nutrition
6: 5–17.
Englberger, L., Schierle, J., Aalbersberg, W., Hofmann,
P., Humphries, J., Huang, A., Lorens, A., Levendusky,
A., Daniells, J., Marks, G.C., and Fitzgerald, M.H. (2006)
‘Carotenoid and vitamin content of Karat and other
Micronesian banana cultivars’, International Journal of Food
Science and Nutrition, vol 57, pp.399–418.
Englberger, L., Schierle, J., Kraemer, K., Aalbersberg, W.,
Dolodolotawake, U., Humphries, J., Graham, R., Reid,
A.P., Lorens, A., Albert, K., Levendusky, A., Johnson, E.,
Paul, Y., and Sengebau, F. (2008) ‘Carotenoid and mineral
content of Micronesian giant swamp taro (Cyrtosperma)
cultivars’, Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, vol
21, pp.93–106.
Englberger, L., Schierle, J., Hoﬀman, P., Lorens, A., Albert,
K., Levendusky, A., Paul, Y., Lickaneth, E., Elymore, A.,
Maddison, M., deBrum, I., Nemra, J., Alfred, J., Vander Velde,
N., and Kraemer, K. (2009) ‘Carotenoid and vitamin content
of Micronesian atoll foods: pandanus (Pandanus tectorius)
and garlic pear (Crataeva speciosa) fruit’, Journal of Food
Composition and Analysis, vol 22, no 1, pp.1–8.
Englberger, L., Lorens, A., Pretrick, M., Raynor, B., Currie,
J., Corsi, A., Kaufer, L., Naik, R.I., Spegal, R. and Kuhnlein,
H.V. (2011) Approaches and lessons learned for promoting
dietary improvement in Pohnpei, Micronesia. In, Combating
Micronutrient Deficiencies: Food-Based Approaches (eds B.
Thompson and L. Amoroso). CABI Books. pp. 224–253.
Englberger, L. and Johnson, E. (2013) Traditional foods
of the Paciﬁc: Go Local, a case study in Pohnpei, Federated
States of Micronesia in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. Borelli,
T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using
Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues
in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.

Fa, J.E., Olivero, J., Real, R., Farfan, M.A., Marquez, A.L.,
Vargas, J.M., Ziegler, S., Wegmann, M., Brown, D., Margetts,
B. and Nasi, R. (2015) Disentangling the relative eﬀects of
bushmeat availability on human nutrition in Central Africa.
Nature
Fanzo J, Hunter D, Borelli T and Mattei F (eds). (2013).
Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity
to Improve Nutrition and Health. Routledge.
FAO (2013a). Review of Key Issues on Biodiversity and
Nutrition. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, CGRFA-14/13/8.
FAO. (2013b) Greening the Economy with Agriculture –
Utilization. In: Greening the Economy with Agriculture. Swiss
Federation and FAO, Rome.
FAO (2013c)  The 2nd International Symposium on
“Sustainable Diets: Human Nutrition and Livestock” 12–16
June, 2013, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. FAO, Bangkok.
FAO (2012) Sustainable Diets: Directions and solutions for
policy, research and action. Eds. Burlingame and Dernini.
FAO, Rome
FAO (2010) Expert Consultation on Nutrition Indicators for
Biodiversity – 2. Food Consumption. Rome: FAO. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i1951e/i1951e00.htm
FAO (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture, Livestock in
the Balance. Figure 16 p. 97. FAO, Rome. Available at: http://
www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf
FAO (2008) Expert Consultation on Nutrition Indicators for
Biodiversity – 1. Food Composition. Rome: FAO. Available
at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1582e/a1582e00.pdf
FAO (2005). Report of the Intergovernmental Technical
Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Rome, Italy.
FAO/INFOODS (2013). Food Composition Database for
Biodiversity (BioFoodComp 2.1). http://www.fao.org/
docrep/019/i3560e/i3560e.pdf
FAO/INFOODS (2013a) FAO/INFOODS Report on the
Nutrition Indicator for Biodiversity – Global Progress Report.
FAO: Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/
i3559e/i3559e.pdf
FAO/INFOODS (2013b) FAO/INFOODS Food composition
database for biodiversity version 2.1  – BioFoodComp2.1.
Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/infoods/
infoods/food-biodiversity/en/
FAOSTAT. 2014. Food and Agricultural Commodities
Production, available at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/
default.aspx
Fentahun, M.T and Hager, H. 2009. Exploiting locally
available resources for food and nutritional enhancement:
wild fruits diversity, potential and state of exploitation in the
Amahara region of Ethiopia. 2009. Food Security, 1: 207–219.
Final report: The transformative potential of the right to food.
A/HRC/25/57. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/
oﬃcialreports/20140310_ﬁnalreport_en.pdf

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 299

Food Composition. Global Progress Report 2012. Rome:
FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/
food-biodiversity/en/
Foote J, Murphy S, Wilkens L, Basiotis P and Carlson A
(2004) Dietary variety increases the probability of nutrient
adequacy among adults. Journal of Nutrition 134:1779–1785
Frison, E. A., Smith, I. F., Johns, T., Cherfas, J., and Eyzaguirre,
P. B. (2006). Agricultural biodiversity, nutrition, and health:
Making a diﬀerence to hunger and nutrition in the developing
world. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 27(2), 167–179. 
Gahukar, R.T. 2011. Entomophagy and human food security.
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 31: 129–144.
Gallaher, C.M., Kerr, J.M., Njenga, M. and Karanja, N.K.
(2013) Urban agriculture, social capital, and food security in
the Kibera slums of Nairobi, Kenya. Agriculture and Human
Values 30; 389–404
Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson,
M., Gustafsson, L ., Kjellander, P., et al.
Higher  levels  of  multiple  ecosystem  services  are found
in  forests  with  more  tree  species. Nat. Commun. 4, 1340
(2013)
Garnett T. (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspectives
and solutions. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72, 29–39.
Gerster-Bentaya, M. (2013) Nutrition-sensitive urban
agriculture. Food Security 5; 723–737
Gold, K. and McBurney, R. 2012. Conservation of plant
diversity for sustainable diets. In: Sustainable diets and
biodiversity: directions and solutions for policy, research and
action, eds B. Burlingame and S. Dernini, pp. 108–114. FAO,
Rome. www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3004e/i3004e.pdf
Golden, C.D., Fernald, L.C.H., Brashares, J.S., Rasolofoniaina,
B.J.R. and Kremen, C. 2011. Beneﬁts of wildlife consumption
to child nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science, 108: 19653–19656.
Graham, R.D., Welch, R.M., Saunders, D.A., Ortiz-Monasterio,
I., Bouis, H.E., Bonierbale, M., de Haan, S., Burgos, G., Thiele,
G., Liria, R. et al. Nutritious subsistence food systems. Adv.
Agron. 92, 1–74 (2007)
Graham, R.D. Micronutrient Deﬁciencies in Crops and Their
Global Significance. In Alloway BJ (eds) Micronutrient
Deﬁciencies in Global Crop Production. Springer, pp 41–62
(2008)
GRAIN (2015) Free trade and Mexico’s junk
food epidemic. http://www.grain.org/ar ticle/
entries/5170-free-trade-and-mexico-s-junk-food-epidemic
Gray, C.L, Bozigar, M. & Bilsborrow, R.E. (2015) Declining
use of wild resources by indigenous peoples of the Ecuadorian
Amazon. Biological Conservation; Vol. 182: 270–277.
Greyling, M. and Potgieter, M. 2004. Mopane worms as a
key woodland resource: The use, trade and conservation of
Imbresia belina. In: Lawes, M.J., Eeley, C.M., Shackleton, C.M.,
(Eds.). Indigenous Forest and woodlands in South Africa.
Policy, people and practice. University of Kwazulu Natal Press,
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. pp 553–573.

Guidetti, P., Bussotti, S., Pizzolante, F., & Ciccolella, A. (2010).
Assessing the potential of an artisanal ﬁshing co-management
in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (southern
Adriatic Sea, SE Italy). Fisheries Research, 101(3), 180–187.
Gussow J.D. and Clancy K. Dietary guidelines for
sustainability. Journal of Nutrition Education (1986)
18(1):1–5.
Haddad, L., Cameron, L. and Barnett, I. (2014) The double
burden of malnutrition in SE Asia and the Paciﬁc: priorities,
policies and politics. Healthy Policy and Planning.
Hajjar R, Jarvis DI, Gemmill-Herren B. The utility of crop
genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services. Agric
Ecosyst Environ. 123(4): 261–270 (2008)
Hatloy, A., Torheim, L., Oshaug, A., 1998. Food variety – a
good indicator of nutritional adequacy of the diet? A case
study from an urban area in Mali, West Africa. Eur. J. Clin.
Nutr. 52, 891–898.
Hatloy, A., Hallund, J., Diarra, MM. and Oshaug A (2000)
Food variety, socioeconomic status and nutritional status
in urban and rural areas in Koutiala (Mali). Public Health
Nutrition 3:57–65
Heywood, V. (2013) Overview of agricultural biodiversity
and its contribution to nutrition and health in: Fanzo, J. and
Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food
and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition
and Health. Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
Heywood, V. and Dulloo, E. (2005) In Situ Conservation of
Wild Plant Species: A Critical Global Review of Good Practices.
IPGRI Technical Bulletin 11. IPGRI, Rome, Italy
Himmelgreen, D.A., Romero-Daza, N., Turkon, D., Watson,
S., Okello-Uma, I. and Sellen, D. 2009. Addressing the HIV/
AIDS food insecurity syndemic in sub-Saharan Africa. African
Journal of AIDS Research, (8): 401–412.
Ho, L.S. , Gittelsohn, J., Sharma, S., Cao, X.Treuth, M., Rimal,
R., et al. (2008). Food-Related Behavior, Physical Activity, and
Dietary Intake in First Nations – a Population at Risk for
Diabetes. Ethnicity and Health 13(4): 335–349.
Hoddinott, J. and Yohannes, Y. (2002)Dietary diversity as
a food security indicator. Washington: International Food
Policy Research Institute, Food Consumption and Nutrition
Division; Discussion Paper No. 136.
Hoﬀman, I. and Baumung, R. (2013) The role of livestock
diversity in sustainable diets in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D.
Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using
Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues
in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
Hooper, D.U., Adair, E.C., Cardinale, B.J., Byrnes, J.E.,
Hungate, B.A., Matulich, K.L., Gonzalez, A., Duﬀy, J.E.,
Gamfeldt, L., O’Connor, M.I. A global synthesis reveals
biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change.
Nature. 2; 486 (7401):105–8. doi: 10.1038/nature11118
(2012)

300 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Hooper, D. U. , F. S. Chapin III, J. J. Ewel, A. Hector, P.
Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J. H. Lawton, D. M. Lodge, M. Loreau,
S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A. J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer,
and D. A. Wardle 2005. Eﬀects of biodiversity on ecosystem
functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological
Monographs 75:3–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/04–0922
(2005)
Hughes, R.G. and Lawrence, M.A. (2005) Globalization, food
and health in Paciﬁc Island Countries. Asia Paciﬁc Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 14 (4): 298–306.
Human Rights Council (2014). Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the right to food,

Jarrell, W.M. and Beverly, R.B. (1981) in Adv. Agron, The
dilution eﬀect in plant nutrition studies, ed Brady N.C.
(Academic Press, New York, NY), Vol. 34, pp 197–224.
Johns, T. and Maundu, P. (2006) Forest biodiversity, nutrition
and population health in market-oriented food systems.
Unasylva 57: 34–40
Johnson, K. B., Jacob, A., and Brown, M. E. (2013). Forest
cover associated with improved child health and nutrition:
evidence from the Malawi Demographic and Health Survey
and satellite data. Global Health: Science and Practice,  1(2),
237–248.

Hunter, L.M., Twine, W. and Patterson, L. 2007. “Locusts are
our beef ”: adult mortality and household dietary use of local
environmental resources in rural South Africa. Scandinavian
Journal of Health, 35(Suppl. 69): 165–174.

Johnston J.; Fanzo J.; and Cogill, B. 2014 Understanding
Sustainable Diets: A descriptive analysis of the determinants
and processes that inﬂuence diets and their impact on health,
food security and environmental sustainability. Advances in
Nutrition Vol 5, No 4. 2014

Hunter D and Heywood V.H. (eds) (2011) Crop Wild Relatives;
A Manual of In Situ Conservation. Issues in Agricultural
Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK. 414pp

Jones, A.D., Shrinivasb, A., Bezner-Kerrc, R., 2014. Farm
production diversity is associated with greater household
dietary diversity in Malawi: ﬁndings from

Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Salim, M.A. and Sunderland, T.C.H.
(2014) Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa. Global
Environmental Change, 24, 287–294

nationally representative data. Food Policy 46, 1–12.

INFOODS (2013). INFOODS: Food Biodiversity. Retrieved
13 December 2013, from http://www.fao.org/infoods/
infoods/food-biodiversity/en/
International Food Policy Research Institute. 2014. Global
Nutrition Report 2014: Actions and Accountability to
Accelerate the World’s Progress on Nutrition. Washington,
DC.
ITC. (2006). International Trade Centre statistics. http://
langues.p-maps.org/pmaps/index.php?
ITC. (2007). International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO.
Overview of World Production and Marketing of Organic
Wild Collected Products. Geneva. 91 pp.
IUCN (2008). Red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland. Available online at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/
[Accessed on the 20 January 2009].
Jackson, R. (1997) Dietary genocide: eating to an early death
in Micronesia. Paciﬁc Health Dialog 4 (1): 88–89.
Jacobsen, S., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., and Weiner,
J. (2013). Feeding the world: Genetically modiﬁed crops
versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 33(4), 651–662.
Jamnadass, R., Place, F., Torquebiau, E., Malézieux, E., Iiyama,
M., Sileshi, G.W., Kehlenbeck, K., Masters, E., McMullin, S.,
Dawson, I.K. (2013). Agroforestry for food and nutritional
securityIn: Unasylva 241, 64 (2), FAO, Rome Italy.
Jamnadass, R.H., Dawson, I.K., Franzel, S., Leakey, R.R.B.,
Mithöfer, D., Akinnifesi, F.K. and Tchoundjeu, Z. (2011).
Improving livelihoods and nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa
through the promotion of indigenous and exotic fruit
production in smallholders’ agroforestry systems: a review.
International Forest Review, 13: 338–354.

Junkers, J., Boesch, C., Mundry, R., Stephens, C., Lormie,
M., Tweh, C. and Kuhl, H.S. (2015) Education and access to
ﬁsh but not economic development predict chimpanzee and
mammal occurrence in West Africa. Biological Conservation
182: 27–35
Kaimowitz, D., and Sheil, D. (2007). Conserving what and
for whom? why conservation should help meet basic human
needs in the tropics. Biotropica, 39(5), 567–574.
Kalipeni, E. and Oppong, J. 1998. The refugee crisis in Africa
and implications for health and disease: a political ecology
approach. Social Science and Medicine, 46: 1637–1653.
Katz, D.L. and Meller, S. (2014) Can we say what diet is best
for health? Annual Review of Public Health, 35: 83–103
Kehlenbeck, K., Asaah, E. and Jamnadass, R. (2013a).
Diversity of indigenous fruit trees and their contribution to
nutrition and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa: examples
from Kenya and Cameroon. In J. Fanzo, D. Hunter, T.
Borelli and F. Mattei, eds. Diversifying food and diets: using
agricultural biodiversity to improve nutrition and health
issues in agricultural biodiversity, pp. 257–269. London,
Earthscan.
Kehlenbeck, K. McMullin, S. Kindt, R. Ofori, D. Jamnadass,
R. (2013b). Fruit tree diversity for enhancing year-round
food and nutrition security: developing a participatory
and multidisciplinary approach Poster presented at the
International Conference for Global Food Security, 29 Sep – 2
Oct 2013, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. Book of Poster
Abstracts p355–358 2013273 http://www.worldagroforestry.
org/downloads/publications/PDFs/PO13273.PDF
Kennedy, G. L., Pedro, M. R., Seghieri, C., Nantel, G., and
Brouwer, I. (2007). Dietary diversity score is a useful indicator
of micronutrient intake in non-breast-feeding Filipino
children. The Journal of nutrition, 137(2), 472–477.
Kennedy, G.; Burlingame, B. (2003). Analysis of food
composition data on rice from a plant genetic resources
perspective. Food Chemistry 80:589–596.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 301

Khoury, C.K., Bjorkman, A.D., Dempewolf, H., RamirezVillegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L.H., Struik,
P.C. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the
implications for food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111,
4001–4006 (2014)
Kinley, A. (2012). Local food on a global scale: An exploration
of the international slow food movement. Journal of
Integrated Studies, 1(3).
Klein A-M, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, et al. Importance of
pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R
Soc B 2007; 274: 303–13.
Kirwan L, et al. Evenness drives consistent diversity eﬀects in
intensive grassland systems across 28 European sites. J Ecol.
95(3):530–539 (2007
Kobori, N.C. and Rodriguez-Amaya, D.B. (2008) Uncultivated
Brazilian green leaves are richer sources of carotenoids
than are commercially produced leafy vegetables. Food and
Nutrition Bulletin 29 (4); 320–328
Kothari, A., Cooney, R., Hunter, D., McKinnon, K., Muller,
E., Nelson, F., Oli, K., Pandey, S., Rasheed, T. and Vavrova,
L. (2015) ‘Chapter 25, Resource Use and Development’
in Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S.
and Pulsford, I. (eds) Protected Area Governance and
Management, Australian National University Press, Canberra,
Australia.
Kremen, C., Miles, A. Ecosystem services in biologically
diversiﬁed versus conventional farming systems: beneﬁts,
externalities, and trade-oﬀs. Ecol. Soc. 17, 40 (2012)
Kuhnlein, H., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D., Burlingame, B.
(2013). Indigenous Peoples Food and Wellbeing: Interventions
and Policies for Healthy Communities. FAO and CINE, Rome.
Kuhnlein, H., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D. (2009). Indigenous
Peoples’ Food Systems: the many dimensions of culture, diversity
and environment for nutrition and health. FAO and CINE, Rome.
Kümpel, N.F., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Cowlishaw, G. and
Rowcliﬀe, J.M. 2010. Incentives for hunting: the role of
bushmeat in the household economy in rural Equatorial
Guinea. Human Ecology, 38:251–264.
Lee, M. S., Woo, M. K., Kwak, C. S., Oh, S. I., & Park, S. C.
(2001). Analysis of traditional Korean food patterns according
to the healthy longevity diet based on the database of favorite
Korean foods. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
928(1), 348–348.
Lee, M.-J., Popkin, B.M. & Kim, S., 2002. The unique aspects
of the nutrition transition in South Korea: the retention of
healthful elements in their traditional diet. Public Health
Nutrition, 5(1A), pp.197–203.
Lewis, M. C., Inman, C. F., Patel, D., Schmidt, B., Mulder, I.,
Miller, B., et al. (2012). Direct experimental evidence that
early-life farm environment inﬂuences regulation of immune
responses. Pediatr Allergy Immunol, 23(3), 265–269.
Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, et al. A comparative risk
assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to
67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–
2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2010. The Lancet 2012; 380(9859): 2224–60.

Lobstein, T., Jackson-Leach, R., Moodie, M.L., Hall, K.D.,
Gortmaker, S.L., Swinburn, B.A., James, W.P.T. and Wang, Y.
(2015) Child and adolescent obesity: part of a bigger picture.
The Lancet
Loyd~Puryear MA et al. Vitamin A deﬁciency in Micronesia:
a statewide survey in Chuuk. Nutr Res 1991; 11: 1101–1110.
Luczaj, L., Končić, M.Z., Miličević, T., Dolina, K. and Pandža,
M. 2013. Wild vegetable mixes sold in the markets of
Dalmatia (southern Croatia). Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine 2013, 9:2. Online http://www.ethnobiomed.
com/content/9/1/2
Lynn, K., Daigle, J., Hoﬀman, J., Lake, F., Michelle, N., Ranco,
D., Viles, C., Voggesser, G. and Williams, P. (2013) The impacts
of climate change on tribal traditional foods. Climate Change
120: 545–556
Lutaladio, N., Burlingame, B., Crews, J. (2010). Horticulture,
biodiversity and nutrition. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis 23, 6:481–485.
Maillot, M., Issa, C., Vieux, F., Lairon, D. and Darmon, N.
(2011) The shortest way to reach nutritional goals is to
adopt Mediterranean food choices: evidence from computergenerated personalized diets. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition
Martínez, I., Stegen, J. C., Maldonado-Gómez, M. X., Eren,
A. M., Siba, P. M., Greenhill, A. R., & Walter, J. (2015). The
gut microbiota of rural Papua New Guineans: composition,
diversity patterns, and ecological processes. Cell reports,
11(4), 527–538.
Mavengahama, S., McLachlan, M., and De Clercq, W. (2013).
The role of wild vegetable species in household food security
in maize based subsistence cropping systems. Food Security,
5(2), 227–233.
Maundu, P., Bosibori, E., Kibet, S., Morimoto, Y., Odubo, A.,
Kapeta, B., Muiruri, P., Adeka, R. and Ombonya, J (2013a).
A practical guide to documenting traditional foodways. Nairobi:
UNESCO.
Maundu, P., Kapeta, B., Muiruri, P., Adeka, R., Ombonya, J.,
Morimoto, Y., Bosibori, E., Kibet, S. and Odubo, A. (2013b)
Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: A photobook of
traditional foodways of the Isukha and East Pokot communities
of Kenya . Nairobi. UNESCO.
Maundu, P., Kapeta, B., Muiruri, P., Morimoto, Y., Bosibori,
E., Kibet, S. and Odubo, A. (2013c) Safegurading Intangible
Cultural heritage: Traditional Foodways of the East Pokot
Community of Kenya. Nairobi. UNESCO.
Maundu, P., Muiruri, P. & Adeka, R., Ombonya, J., Morimoto,
Y., Bosibori, E., Kibet, S. and Odubo, A. (2013d) Safeguarding
Intangible Cultural Heritage: Traditional Foodways of the Isukha
Community of Kenya. Nairobi. UNESCO.
McBurney, R.P.H., Griﬃn, C., Paul, A.A and Greenberg, D.C.
(2004) The nutritional composition of African wild food
plants: from compilation to utilization. Journal of Food
Composition and Analysis, 17 (3–4): 277–89

302 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

McDermott, J., Johnson, N., Kadiyala, S., Kennedy, G.
and Wyatt, A.J. (2015) Agricultural research for nutrition
outcomes – rethinking the agenda. Food Security DOI
10.1007/s12571–0462–9

Moursi, M.M., Arimond, M., Dewey, K.G., Treche, S., Ruel,
M.T., 2008. Dietary diversity is a good predictor of the
micronutrient density of the diet of 6- to 23- month-old
children in Madagascar. J. Nutr. 138, 2448–2453.

McEwan, M., Prain, G. and Hunter, D. (2013) Opening a can
of mopane worms: can cross-sectoral partnerships leverage
agricultural biodiversity for better quality diets? in: Fanzo, J.
and Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food
and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition
and Health. Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.

Myers et al (2014) Increasing CO2 threatens human
nutrition. Nature 510 (7503), 139–142.

McGarry, D.K. and Shackleton, C.M. 2009a. Is HIV/AIDS
jeopardising biodiversity? Environmental Conservation, 36:
5–7.
McGarry, D.K. and Shackleton, C.M. 2009b. Children
navigating rural poverty: rural children’s use of wild resources
to counteract food insecurity in the Eastern Cape province,
South Africa. Journal of Children and Poverty, 15: 19–37.
McLaren DS (1966) A fresh look at protein calorie
malnutrition. Lancet 1966;2:485–488
McLaren DS (1974) The great protein fiasco. Lancet
1974;2:93–96
Medhammar, E., Wijesinha-Bettoni, R., Stadlmayr, B.,
Nilsson, E., Charrondiere, U.R., Burlingame, B. (2012).
Composition of milk from minor dairy animals and buﬀalo
breeds: a biodiversity perspective. Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture, 92, 445–474.
Merchant, C. American Environmental History: An
Introduction. Columbia University Press, New York (2007).
Mertz, O., Lykke, A.M. and Reenburg, A. 2001. Importance
and seasonality of vegetable consumption and marketing in
Burkina Faso. Economic Botany, 55: 276–289.
Mijatović D, van Oudenhoven F, Eyzaguirre P, Hodgkin T. The
role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to
climate change: Towards an analytical framework. Int J Agric
Sustain.; 11(2):95–107 (2013)
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and
Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Island Press.
Ministry of Health. 2012. The Health of New Zealand Adults
2011/12: Key ﬁndings of the New Zealand Health Survey.
Wellington: Ministry of Health
Minjigdorja,, N Hauga, A. and Austbøa, D. (2012). Fatty acid
composition of Mongolian mare milk. Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 62,2: 73–80.
Mirmiran P, Azadbakht L, Esmaillzadeh A and Azizi F (2004)
Dietary diversity score in adolescents- a good indicator of the
nutritional adequacy of diets: Tehran lipid and glucose study.
Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Clinical Nutrition 13(1):56–60
Mojeremane, W. and Tshwenyane, S.O. 2004. Azanza
garckeana: a valuable indigenous fruit tree of Botswana.
Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 3: 264–267.
Moomaw, W., Griﬃn, T., Kurczak, K., Lomax, J. The Critical
Role of Global Food Consumption Patterns in Achieving
Sustainable Food Systems and Food for All. United Nations
Environment Programme, Paris, France (2012).

Nasi, R., Taber, A. and Van Vliet, N. 2011. Empty forests,
empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo
and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13(3):
355–368.
Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., van
Tol, G. and Christophersen, T. 2008. Conservation and use
of wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis. Technical
Series 33. Montreal/Bogor, Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity/Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR).
Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N.,
Margono, C., et al. (2014). Global, regional, and national
prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults
during 1980–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet, 384(9945),
766–781.
Obopile, M. and Seeletso, T.G. 2013. Eat or not eat: an
analysis of the status of entomophagy in Botswana. Food
Security, 5: 817–824.
Ocho, D.L., Struik, P.C., Price, L.L., Kelbessa, E. and Kolo, K.
2012. Assessing the level of food shortage using the traﬃc
light metaphor by analysing the gathering and consumption
of wild foods plants, crop parts and crop residues in Konso,
Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8: 30.
online http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/8/1/30.
Olsen, A., Egeberg, R., Halkjær, J., Christensen, J., Overvad,
K., & Tjønneland, A. (2011). Healthy aspects of the Nordic
diet are related to lower total mortality. The Journal of
nutrition, 141(4), 639–644.
Orsini, F., Gasperi, D., Marchetti, L., Piovene, C., Draghetti,
S., Ramazzotti, S., Bazzocchi, G. and Gianquinto, G. (2014)
Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs)
in urban agriculture: the potential impact on food and
nutrition security, biodiversity and other ecosystem services
in the city of Bologna. Food Security 6: 781–792
Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans
(PISCO). (2011). The Science of Marine Reserves (2nd
Edition, Europe). www.piscoweb.org. 22 pages.
Patel, K., Guenther, D., Wiebe, K. and Seburn, R.A. (2014)
Promoting food security and livelihoods for urban poor
through the informal sector: a case study of street food
vendors in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India. Food Security 6:
861–878
Paull, J. (2013) “Please pick me’: how Incredible Edible
Todmorden is repurposing the commons for open source
food and agricultural biodiversity in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter,
D. Borelli, T. and Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets:
Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health.
Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 303

Pedro, M.R.A., Benavides, R.C., Barba, C.V.C. 2006. Dietary
changes and their health implications in the Philippines. In
The double burden of malnutrition: Case studies in six developing
countries. Food and Agriculture Organization Food and
Nutrition Papers No. 83. FAO of the United Nations, Rome:
pp. 205 – 258 (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0442e/
a0442e00.pdf)
Penaﬁel, D., Lachat, C., Espinel, R., Van Damme, P., and
Kolsteren, P. (2011). A systematic review on the contributions
of edible plant and animal biodiversity to human diets.
EcoHealth, 8(3), 381–399.

Remans R, Flynn D, DeClerck F, Diru W, Fanzo J et al.
Assessing nutritional diversity of cropping systems in African
villages. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21235. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0021235 (2011)
Remans, R. and Smukler, S. (2013) Linking biodiversity and
nutrition in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and Mattei, F.
(eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity
to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues in Agricultural
Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.

Petrini, C. (2013). Slow food nation: Why our food should be
good, clean, and fair. Rizzoli Publications.

Remans, R., Wood, S., Anderman, T.L., Saha, N., DeFries,
R. (2014) Measuring nutritional diversity of national
food supplies. Global food security. DOI: 10.1016/j.
gfs.2014.07.001

Petrillo, P.L. (2012): Biocultural diversity and the
Mediterranean diet. In: FAO. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity:
Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. Eds.
Burlingame and Dernini. FAO, Rome, pp. 224–229.

Roberto, C.A., Swinburn, B., Hawkes, C., Huang, T, T-K,
Costa, S.A., Ashe, M., Zwicker, L., Cawley, J.H. and Brownell,
K.D. (2015) Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging
examples, entrenched barriers and new thinking. The Lancet

Pezzana, A., Bersani, L., Baldereschi, F., Ponzio, R., Frighi,
Z., Durelli, P. C., Vassalo, D. and Petrini, C. (2014). An
“LCA” approach to Slow Food Presidia products: from agroenvironmental and socio-cultural aspects to economic
sustainability and nutritional evaluations. In Schenck,
R., Huizenga, D. (Eds.), 2014. Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the
Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), 8–10 October 2014, San
Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA.

Rubiang-Yalambing, L., Arcot, J., Greenﬁeld, H. and Holford,
P. (2014) Aibika (Abelmoschus manihot L.): Genetic variation,
morphology and relationships to micronutrient composition.
Food Chemistry

Picasso VD, Brummer EC, Liebman M, Dixon PM, Wilsey
BJ. Crop species diversity aﬀects productivity and weed
suppression in perennial polycultures under two management
strategies. Crop Sci.; 48(1):331–342 (2008)
Pollan, M. (2008). In Defense of Food – An eater’s manifesto.
New York, USA: Penguin Books.
Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., & Ng, S. W. (2012). Global nutrition
transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing
countries. Nutrition reviews, 70(1), 3–21.
Popkin, B. M. (2001). The nutrition transition and obesity
in the developing world. The Journal of nutrition, 131(3),
871S-873S.
Poulsen, S.K., Due, A., Jordy, A.B., Kiens, B., Stark, K.D.,
Stender, S., Holst, C., Astrup, A., and Larsen, T.M. (2014):
Health eﬀect of the New Nordic Diet in adults with increased
waist circumference : a 6-mo randomized controlled trial. The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 99 (1), pp.35–45.
Powell, B., Ouarghidi, A., Johns, T., Tattou, M. I., and
Eyzaguirre, P. (2014). Wild leafy vegetable use and
knowledge across multiple sites in Morocco: a case study for
transmission of local knowledge?. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine, 10(1), 34.
Powell, B., Thilsted, S. H., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C.,
Sunderland, T. and Herforth, A. (2015) Improving diets with
wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape.
Food Security DOI 10.1007/s12571–015–0466–5
Prosperi P.; Allen T.; Padilla M.; Peri I.; and Cogill, B. 2014.
Sustainability and Food and Nutrition Security: A Vulnerability
Assessment Framework for the Mediterranean Region. Sage
Open 2014 4: DOI: 10.1177/2158244014539169

Rook, G. A. (2013). Regulation of the immune system by
biodiversity from the natural environment: an ecosystem
service essential to health. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 110(46), 18360–18367.
Ruel, M., Graham, J., Murphy, S., and Allen, L. (2004).
Validating simple indicators of dietary diversity and animal
source food intake that accurately reﬂect nutrient adequacy
in developing countries. Report submitted to GL-CRSP.
Ruel, M.T. (2003). Operationalising dietary diversity: a review
of measurement issues and research priorities. The Journal
of Nutrition (Supplement) 3911S-3926S.
Ruel MT and Levin CE (2002) Food based approaches for
alleviating micronutrient malnutrition – an overview. J Crop
Prod 2002; 6:31–35
Ruiz Pérez M., Ndoye O. and Eyebe A. 1999. Marketing of
non-timber forest products in the humid forest zone of
Cameroon. Unasylva, 50: 12–19.
Saxe, H., 2014. The New Nordic Diet is an eﬀective tool
in environmental protection: it reduces the associated
socioeconomic cost of diets. The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 99(5), pp.1117–25.
Schaumberg, D. A., Linehan, M., Hawley, G., O’Connor, J. O.,
Dreyfuss, M., and Semba, R. D. (1995). Vitamin A deﬁciency
in the South Paciﬁc. Public Health, 109, 311–317.
Schneider, S. (2008). Good, clean, fair: The rhetoric of the
slow food movement. College English, 70(4), 384–402.
Schreckenberg, K. 2004. The contribution of shea butter
(Vitellaria paradoxa C.F. Gaertner) to local livelihoods
in Benin. In: Sunderland, T. and Ndoye, O. (eds). Forest
products, livelihoods and conservation: case studies of nontimber forest product systems, vol 2: Africa. CIFOR, Bogor,
pp 149–168.

304 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Schulp, C.J.E., Thuiller, W. and Verburg, P.H. (2014) Wild food
in Europe: a synthesis of knowledge and data of terrestrial
wild food and as an ecosystem service. Ecological Economics
105; 292–305
Scoones, I. Melnyk, M. and Pretty, J. N. (1992) Hidden
Harvest: Wild Foods in Agricultural Systems, A literature
review and annotated bibliography. IIED, UK, 256, pp.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012)
Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal, 64 pages.
Shackleton, S.E., Kirby, D. and Gambiza, J. 2011. Invasive
plants – friends or foes? Contribution of prickly pear (Opuntia
ﬁcus-indica) to livelihoods in Makana Municipality, Eastern
Cape, South Africa. Development southern Africa, 28:
177–193.
Shackleton, C.M., Shackleton, S.E., Gambiza, J., Nel, E.,
Rowntree, K., Urquhart, P., Fabricus, C. and Ainslie, A. 2010.
Livelihoods and vulnerability in the arid and semi-arid lands
of southern Africa: exploring the links between ecosystem
services and poverty alleviation. Nova Publishers, New York.
pp 267.
Shackleton, C., Pasquini, M. and Drescher, A.W. (2009) African
indigenous vegetables in urban agriculture. Earthscan, UK
Shackleton, S.E., Campbell, B., Lotz-Sisitka, H. and
Shackleton, C.M. 2008. Links between the local trade in
natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a
semi-arid region of South Africa. World Development, 36:
505–526. Shackleton, C.M. and Shackleton, S.E. 2004.The
importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood
security and as safety-nets: evidence from South Africa. South
African Journal of Science, 100: 658–664.
Shackleton, C.M., Dzerefos, C.M., Shackleton, S.E. and
Mathabela, F.R. 2000. The use of and trade in indigenous
edible fruits in the Bushbuckridge savanna region, South
Africa. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 39: 225–245.
Shackleton, S.E., Shackleton, C.M., Dzerefos, C.M. and
Mathabela, F.R. 1998. Use and trading of wild edible herbs
in the central lowveld savanna region, South Africa. Economic
Botany, 52: 251–259.

Song, Y. & Joung, H., 2012. A traditional Korean dietary
pattern and metabolic syndrome abnormalities. Nutrition,
Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 22(5), pp.456–462.
Stadlmayr, B., et al. (2013) Review: Nutrient composition of
selected indigenous fruits from sub-Saharan Africa. Journal
of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 93(11): 2627 – 2636
Stadlmayr, B., Nilsson, E., Medhammar, E., Burlingame,
B., and Charrondiere, U. R. (2011) . Nutrition indicator for
biodiversity on food composition – A report on the progress
of data availability. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis, 24(4–5), 692–698.
Steyn, N.P., Nel., J.H., Nantel, G., Kennedy, G. and Labadarios,
D. 2006. Food variety and dietary diversity scores in children:
are they good indicators of dietary adequacy? Public Health
Nutrition, 9: 644–650.
Styles, C.V. 1994. There’s big value in mopane worms.
Farmer’s Weekly, 22 July, 20–22
Styles, C.V. 1995. The elephant and the worm. BBC Wildlife
13:22–24
Sujarwo, W., Arinasa, I.B.K., Salomone, F., Caneva, G. and
Fattorini, S. (2014) Cultural erosion of Balinese indigenous
knowledge of food and nutraceutical plants. Economic Botany
68, 426–437.
Swinburn, B., Kraak, V., Rutter, H., Vandevijvere, S., Lobstein,
T., Sacks, G., Gomes, F., Marsh, T. and Magnusson, R. (2015)
Strengthening of accountability systems to create healthy
food environments and reduce global obesity. The Lancet
Talavera MT, Felix A and Narciso M. 2011. Integrated
Report on Formative Research on Food Preparation and
Complementary Feeding Practices of Mothers of 0–23 month
old children. IHNF, CHE, UPLB.
Thow, A. M., Swinburn, B., Colagiuri, S., Diligolevu, M.,
Quested, C., Vivili, P. and Leeder, S. (2010) Trade and food
policy: case studies from three Paciﬁc Island countries. Food
Policy 35: 556–564.
Termote et al. (2012a) Wild edible plant markets in Kisangani,
Democratic Republic of Congo. Human Ecology 40: 269–285.

Shimbo, S., Kimura, K., Imai, Y., Yasumoto, K., Yamamoto,
K., et al.. Number of food items as an indicator of nutrient
intake. Ecol. Food Nutr. 32, 197–206 (1994)

Termote et al. (2012b) A biodiverse rich environment does
not contribute to a better diet: a case study from DRCongo.
PLoS One 7: 1–10.

Sho, H., 2001. History and characteristics of Okinawan
longevity food. Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 10(2),
pp.159–164.

Termote et al. (2011) Eating from the wild: Turumbu, Mbole
and Bali traditional knowledge on non-cultivated edible
plants, District Tshopo, DRCongo. Genetic Resources and
Crop Evolution: 58: 585–618.

Shrimpton R, Rokx C. The double burden of malnutrition: a
review of global evidence. Health, Nutrition, and Population
(HNP) Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: The World Bank,
2012. http://www-wds.worldbank.org
Simmonds, N.W. (1995) The relation between yield and
protein in cereal grain. J. Sci. Food Agr. 67:309–315.
Snowdon, W. and Thow, A.M. (2013) Trade policy and obesity
prevention: challenges and innovation in the Paciﬁc Islands.
Obesity Reviews 14: 150–158

Termote, C., Van Damme, P. and Djailo, B.D. 2010. Eating
from the wild: Turumbu indigenous knowledge on noncultivated edible plants, Tshopo District, DRCongo. Ecology
of Food and Nutrition, 49: 173–207.
Tetens, I. Hels, O., Khan, N.I., Tilsted, S.H. and Hassan, N.
2003. Rice-based diets in rural Bangladesh: how do diﬀerent
age and sex groups adapt to seasonal changes in energy
intake? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 23: 406–413.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 305

Thebo, A.L., Drechsel, P. and Lambin, E.F. (2014) Global
assessment of urban and peri-urban agriculture: irrigated
and rainfed croplands. Environmental Research Letters 9:
doi:10.1088/1748–9326/9/11/114002
Tilsted, S.H. (2013) Fish diversity and ﬁsh consumption
in Bangladesh in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and
Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural
Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues in
Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.
Tirado, M.C., Crahay, P., Mahy, L., Zanev, C., Neira, M.,
Msangi, S., Brown, R., Scaramella, C., Costa Coitinho, D. and
Muller, A. (2013) Climate change and nutrition: creating a
climate for nutrition security. Food and Nutrition Bulletin
34: 533–547
The Lancet (2013). Maternal and Child Nutrition Series.
Richard Horton Editor-in-Chief. 6 June 2013.

UN (2012). Report of the United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June
2012. United Nations, New York.
UN SCN (2013). Nutrition and Sustainability. A longterm vision for effective strategies. http://www.unscn.
org/files/NutCC/Nutrition-and-Sustainability-Seminar/
NutSus_12Nov2013.pdf
UNEP (2012). The Critical Role of Global Food Consumption
Patterns in Achieving Sustainable Food Systems and Food for
All, A UNEP Discussion Paper”, United Nations Environment
Programme. Paris, France.
UNESCO (2010). Intangible heritage: The Mediterranean
diet. Available at: http://www.unesco.org Accessed March
25, 2015.

The Lancet (2008). Maternal and Child Undernutrition Series.
Richard Horton Editor-in-Chief. January 16, 2008.

UNESCO (2013). Intergovernmental Committee for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: Decisions,
Available at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.
php?pg=00473.

Tilman, D. and Clark, M. (2014) Global diets link
environmental sustainability and human health. Nature
515:518–522

Vanbergen AJ. Insect Pollinators Initiative (2013) Threats to
an ecosystem service: Pressures on pollinators. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 2013; 11: 251–9.

Tilsted, S.H. (2013) Fish diversity and ﬁsh consumption
in Bangladesh in: Fanzo, J. and Hunter, D. Borelli, T. and
Mattei, F. (eds) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural
Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. Issues in
Agricultural Biodiversity, Earthscan, UK.

Van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E.,
Halloran, A., Muir, G., and Vantomme, P. (2013) Edible
insects: future prospects for food and feed security. FAO
Forestry Paper 171.

Toledo, A. and Burlingame, B. (2006). Biodiversity and
nutrition: A common path toward global food security and
sustainable development. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis 19, 6–7, 477–483.
Turner, N.J., Luczaj, L.J., Migliorini, P., Pieroni, A., Dreon,
A.L., Sacchetti, L.E. Paoletti, M.G. (2011) Edible and tended
wild plants, traditional ecological knowledge and agroecology.
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30: 198–225
Turner, N., Plotkin, M., Kuhnlein, H. (2013). Global
environmental challenges to the integrity of Indigenous
Peoples’ food systems. In In Indigenous peoples’ food systems
and well-being: interventions and policies for healthy communities.
FAO, Rome.
Turner, R., Hawkes, J. Waage, J., Ferguson, E., Haseen, F.,
Homans, H., Hussein, J., Johnston, D., Marais, D., McNeill, G.,
and Shankar, B. (2013) Agriculture for improved agriculture:
the current research landscape. Food and Nutrition Bulletin
34 (4); 369–377
UN Administrative Committee on Coordination/
Subcommittee on Nutrition (ACC/SCN) (2000).Fourth report
on the world nutrition situation: ACC/
SCN in collaboration with the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).
UN (2014). Proposal of The Open Working Group For
Sustainable Development Goals. 4 Aug 2014. Available
at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/68/pdf/
letters/08042014_OWG%20Sustainable%20Goals.pdf

Van Oudenhoven, F. and Haider, J. (2015) With Our
Own Hands; A Celebration of Food and Life in the Pamir
Mountains of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. LM Publishers, the
Netherlands. 672 pp.
Van Vliet, N., Nebesse, C., Gambalemoke, S., Akaibe, D.
and Nasi, R. 2012. The bush meat market of Kisangana,
Democratic Republic of Congo: implications for conservation
and food security. Oryx, 46: 196–203.
Vinceti, B., Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Kehlenbeck, K., Termote,
C., Cogill, B. and Hunter, D. (2013) The contribution of forest
foods to sustainable diets. Unasylva 64; 54–64.
Vira, B., Wildburger, C. and Mansourian, S. (2015) Forests,
Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition; A
Global Assessment Report. IUFPRO World Series Volume
33. Vienna. 172p
Wahlqvist, M. & Specht, R. (1998). Food variety and
biodiversity: Econutrition. Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Clinical
Nutrition  12; 7(3/4):314–9.
Wahlqvist ML, Specht RL. 1998. Food variety and
biodiversity: Econutrition. Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 7(3/4): 314–319.
Weinberg, K. andPichop, G.N. 2009. Marketing of African
indigenous vegetables along urban and peri-urban supply
chains in sub-Saharan Africa. In Shackleton, C.M., Pasquini,
M.W. and Drescher, A.W., (Eds.). African Indigenous
Vegetables in Urban Agriculture. Earthscan, London. pp
225–244.
WHO (1981). International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk
Substitutes. World Health Organization, Geneva.

306 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

WHO (2012a). Obesity and Overweight. (2012) WHO Fact
Sheet No 311. May 2012. WHO, Geneva.
WHO (2012b). Our Planet, our Health, our Future: Human
health and the Rio Conventions, Biological diversity, climate
change and desertiﬁcation. Geneva.
Willcox, D.C. et al., (2009). The Okinawan Diet: Health
Implications of a Low-Calorie, Nutrient-Dense, AntioxidantRich Dietary Pattern Low in Glycemic Load. Journal of the
American College of Nutrition, 28(4), pp.2–6.
Wolfe, N. D., Daszak, P., Kilpatrick, A. M., & Burke, D. S.
(2005). Bushmeat hunting, deforestation, and prediction
of zoonotic disease. Emerging infectious diseases, 11(12),
1822–1827.
World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer
Research (2007). Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the
Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Washington DC,
AICR.
Wunder, S., Angelsen, A., and Belcher, B. (2014). Forests,
Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base.
World Development. DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.007
Xu, Y-K, Tao, G-D., Liu, H-M., Yan, K-L and Dao, X-S.
(2004). Wild vegetable resources and market survey in
Xishuangbanna, southwest China. Economic Botany, 58:
647–667.
Yamano, T. and Jayne, T.S. (2004). Measuring the impacts
of working age adult mortality among small-scale farm
households in Kenya. World Development, 32: 323–335.
Yang, R. and Keding, G.B. (2009). Nutritional contributions
of important African Indigenous Vegetables. In Shackleton,
C.M., Pasquini, M.W. and Drescher, A.W., (Eds.). African
Indigenous Vegetables in Urban Agriculture. Earthscan,
London. Pp. 105–135.
Zhang, Y., Y. Chen. Modeling and evaluating ecosystem in
1980s and 1990s for American lobster (Homarus americanus)
in the Gulf of Maine. Ecological Modeling 203: 475–489
(2007).

Chapter 7
Acevedo-Whitehouse, K., Gulland, F., Greig, D. & Amos, W.
(2003). Inbreeding: disease susceptibility in California sea
lions. Nature 422, 35.
Acevedo-Whitehouse, K., Vicente, J. ,Gortazar, C., Hoﬂe,
U., Fernandez-de-Mera, I. G. & Amos, W. (2005) Genetic
resistance to bovine tuberculosis in the Iberian wild boar.
Molecular Ecology 14, 3209–3217.
Acevedo-Whitehouse, K., Spraker, T. R., Lyons, E., Melin, S.
R., Gulland, F., Delong, R. L., Amos, W. (2006) Contrasting
eﬀects of heterozygosity on survival and hookworm resistance
in California sealion pups. Molecular Ecology 15(7):1973–82.
Afrane, Y.A.; Zhou, G.; Lawson , B.W.; Githeko, A.K.& Yan,
G. Life-table analysis of Anopheles arabiensis in Western
Kenya highlands: eﬀects of land covers on larval and adult
survivorship. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene, 77: 660–666, 2007.

Ahlenius, H. (2008). The economy of legal wildlife
trade. In Environment and Poverty Times #5: Pro-poor
growth issue; http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/
the-economy-of-legal-wildlife-trade_e1b8.
Akhavan D. (2000) Análise de Custo-efetividade do Programa
de Controle da Doença de Chagas no Brasil, Organização PanAmericana da Saúde, Brasília, 271 pp.
Alderman, D. J. (1996). Geographical spread of bacterial and
fungal diseases of crustaceans. In Preventing the spread of
aquatic animal diseases (B.J. Hill & T. Håstein, eds). Rev. sci.
tech. Oﬀ. int. Epiz., 15 (2), 603–632.
Allan, B. F., Keesing, F., & Ostfeld, R. S. (2003). Eﬀect of forest
fragmentation on Lyme disease risk. Conservation Biology
17:267–272.
Allen, H. K., Donato, J., Wang, H. H, Cloud-Hansen, K.
A., Davies, J., & Handelsman, J. (2010). Call of the wild:
antibiotic resistance genes in natural environments. Nature
Reviews Microbiology. 8:251–259.
Amos, W. & Acevedo-Whitehouse, K. (2009). A new test for
genotype-ﬁtness associations reveals a single microsatellite
allele that strongly predicts the nature of tuberculosis
infections in wild boar. Molecular Ecology Resources. DOI:
10.1111/j.1755–0998.2009.02560.x
Anderson, P. K., Cunningham, A. A., Patel, N. G., Morales,
F. J., Epstein, P. R., Daszak, P. (2004). “Emerging infectious
diseases of plants: pathogen pollution, climate change and
agrotechnology drivers.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution
19:535–544.
Araujo, C. A., Waniek, P. J., Jansen, A. M. (2009). An
overview of Chagas disease and the role of Triatomine on its
distribution in Brazil. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases,
9: 227–234.
Armién AG, Armién B, Koster F, Pascale JM, Avila M ,
Gonzalez P, de la Cruz M , Zaldivar Y, Mendoza Y, Gracia
F, Hjelle B , Lee SJ, Yates TL & Salazar-Bravo J (2009).
Hantavirus Infection and Habitat Associations among Rodent
Populations in Agroecosystems of Panama: Implications for
Human Disease Risk. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 81(1): 59–66.
Bandyopadhyay, R., Frederiksen. R. A. (1999). “Contemporary
global movement of emerging plant diseases.” Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 894: 28–36.
Baize, S., Pannetier, D., Oestereich, L., Rieger, T., Koivogui,
L., Magassouba, N. F., ... & Günther, S. (2014). Emergence of
Zaire Ebola virus disease in Guinea – preliminary report. New
England Journal of Medicine.
Bastos EGMB; Araújo AFB & Silva HRS. (2005) Records of the
rattlesnakes Crotalus durissus terriﬁcus (Laurenti) (Serpentes,
Viperidae) in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a possible case
of invasion facilitated by deforestation. Rev. Bras. Zool. 22 (3)
pp. 812–815
Bourne, D. G., Garren, M., Work, T. M., Rosenberg, G. W.
& Harvell, C. D. (2009). Microbial disease and the coral
holobiont. Trends in Microbiology 17(12): 554–562.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 307

Brearley, G., Rhodes, J., Bradley, A., Baxter, G., Seabrook,
L., Lunney, D., Liu, Y., McAlpine, C. (2012). Wildlife disease
prevalence in human-modiﬁed landscapes. Biological Reviews
88(2):427–442.
Brown, A. W. A. (1977). Yellow fever, dengue and dengue
haemorrhagic fever. In A world geography of human diseases,
ed. Howe, G.M. London: Academic Press, pp. 271–3127.
Bunnag, T., Sornmani, S., Pinithpongse, S. & Harinasuta,
C. (1979). Surveillance of water-borne parasitic infections
and studies on the impacts of ecological changes on vector
mosquitoes of malaria after dam construction. Southeast
Asian J Trop Med Public Health, 10:656–660.
Burge, C. A., Eakin, C. M., Friedman, C. S., Froelich, B.,
Hershberger, P. K., Hoﬀman, E. E., Petes, L. E., Prager, K.
C., Weil, E., Willis, B. L., Ford, S. E. & Harvell, C. D. (2014).
Climate change inﬂuences on marine infectious disease:
implications for management and society. Annual Review in
Marine Science 6: 249–277.

Cleaveland, S., Laurenson, K., & Mlengeya, T. (2005).
“Impacts of Wildlife Infections on Human and Livestock
Health with Special Reference to Tanzania: Implications for
Protected Area Management”. Chapter 20. IN: Conservation
and Development Interventions at the Wildlife/Livestock
Interface- Implications for Wildlife, Livestock and Human
Health”. IUCN. Ed. Osofsky S.A.
Cleaveland, S., Packer, C., Hampson, K., Kaare, M., Kock,
R., Craft, M., Lembo, T., Mlengeya, T., Dobson, A. (2008).
The multiple roles of infectious diseases in the serengeti
ecosystem. In: Sinclair ARE, Packer C, Mduma S, Fryxell JM
(eds) In Serengeti III: Human impacts on dynamic ecosystems.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 209–240
Cohen, J. E. (2003). Human population: The next half century.
Science 302(5648):1172–1175.
Coluzzi, M. (1984). Heterogeneities of the malaria vectorial
system in tropical Africa and their signiﬁcance in malaria
epidemiology and control. Bulletin WHO 62(suppl):107–113

Burge, C. A., Kim, C. J. S., Lyles, J. M., Harvell, C. D. (2013).
Special Issue Oceans and Humans Health: the ecology of
marine opportunists. Microb. Ecol. 65:869–79.

Coluzzi, M. (1994). Malaria and the Afrotropical ecosystems:
impact of man-made environmental changes. Parassitologia
36:223–227.

Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A.,
Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., Baillie, J. E. M.,
Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K. E., Carr, G.
M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A. M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C.,
Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi,
P., Gregory, R. D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M. A., McRae, L., Minasyan,
A., Morcillo, M. H., Oldﬁeld, T. E. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S.,
Revenga, C., Sauer, J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., StanwellSmith, D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T. D.,
Vié, J.-C., & Watson. R. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators
of Recent Declines. Science 328: 1164–1168.

Conrad, K. (2012). Trade bans: a perfect storm for poaching?
Tropical Conservation Science 5(3):245–254.

Capinha, C., Larson, E. R., Tricario, E., Olden, J. D., Gherardi,
F. (2013). Eﬀects of climate change, invasive species, and
disease on the distribution of native European crayﬁshes.
Conservation Biology 27(4): 731–740.
Cardona, G. A. & Carmena, D. (2013). A review of the global
prevalence, molecular epidemiology and economics of cystic
echinococcosis in production animals. Veterinary Parasitology,
192:10–32.
Castro, V., Rivera, C., Isard, S. A., Gamez, R., Fletcher, J. &
Irwin, M. (1992). The inﬂuence of weather and microclimate
on Dalbulus maidis (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) ﬂight activity
and the incidence of diseases within maize and bean
monocultures and bicultures in tropical America. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 121:469–482.
Charlwood J. D. & Alecrim, W. A. (1989). Capture-recapture
studies with the South American malarial vector Anopheles
darlingi, Root. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 83:569–576
Chomel, B., Belotto, A. & Meslin, F. (2007). “Wildlife, exotic
pets, and emerging zoonoses. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13:
6–11.

Couacy-Hymann, E., Bodjo, C., Danho, T., Libeau, G., Diallo,
A. (2005). Surveillance of wildlife as a tool for monitoring
rinderpest and peste des petits ruminants in West Africa.
Rev. sci. tech. Oﬀ. int. Epiz., 24 (3), 869–877.
Cox, C. M., Bockus, W. W., Holt, R. D., Fang, L., & Garrett, K.
A. (2013). Spatial connectedness of plant species: potential
links for apparent competition via plant diseases. Plant
Pathol. Doi: 10.1111.ppa.12045.
Crowl, T. A., Crist, T. O., Parmenter, R. P., Belovsky, G. & Lugo,
A. E. (2008). “The Spread Of Invasive Species And Infectious
Disease As Drivers Of Ecosystem Change.” Frontiers In Ecology
And The Environment 6: 238–246.
Daszak, P., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Bogich, T. L., Fernandez,
M., Epstein, J.H., Murray, K.A., Hamilton, H. (2013).
Interdisciplinary approaches to understanding disease
emergence: The past, present, and future drivers of Nipah
virus emergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 110(Suppl 1):
3681–3688.
de Balogh, K., Halliday, J., & Lubroth, J. (2013). Integrating
the surveillance of animal health, foodborne pathogens and
foodborne diseases in developing and in-transition countries.
Rev. sci. tech. Oﬀ. int. Epiz., 32 (2), 539–548.
DeFries, R. S., et al. (2010). Deforestation driven by urban
population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-ﬁrst
century. Nature Geosci 3(3):178–181.
Dethlefsen, L., McFall-Ngai, M. & Relman, D. A. (2007).
Review Article An ecological and evolutionary perspective on
human–microbe mutualism and disease Nature 449, 811–818
doi:10.1038/nature06245
Domenach, J., Lubroth, J., & Sumption, K. (2010). Immune
Protection in Animals: The Examples of Rinderpest and Footand-Mouth Disease. J. Comp. Path. 142: S120eS124.

308 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J., McGill, B., Shimadzu, H., Moyes,
F., Sievers, C. & Magurran, A. E. (2014). Assemblage time
series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss.
Science 344:296–299.

Foxcroft, L. C., Pyšek, P., Richardson, D. M., Genovesi, P. (eds)
(2013). Plant invasions in protected areas: patterns, problems
and challenges. Springer, Dordrecht. http://www.springer.
com/life+sciences/ecology/book/978–94–007–7749–1

Driscoll, E. E., Hoﬀman, J. I., Green, L. E., Medley, G. F.,
Amos, W. (2011). A preliminary study of genetic factors that
inﬂuence susceptibility to bovine tuberculosis in the British
cattle herd. PLoS One 6(4):e18806.

Friedman, C. S., Andree, K. B., Beauchamp, K., Moore, J.
D., Robbins, T. T., et al. (2000). “Candidatus Xenohaliotis
californiensis”, a newly described pathogen of abalone,
Haliotis spp., along the west coast of North America. Int. J.
Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 50:847–55.

Dunn, R. R., Davies, T. J., Harris, N. C., & Gavin, M. C.
(2010). Global drivers of human pathogen richness and
prevalence. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
277:2587–2595.
Dunne JA, Laﬀerty KD, Dobson AP, Hechinger RF, Kuris
AM, Martinez ND, McLaughlin JP, Mouritsen KN, Poulin
R, Reise K, Stouﬀer DB, Thieltges DW, Williams RJ, Zander
CD (2013) Parasites Aﬀect Food Web Structure Primarily
through Increased Diversity and Complexity. PLoS Biol 11(6):
e1001579. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001579.
Dutta, M., Sokhandan B. N., Palmer, M. W., & Melcher, U.
(2014). Genomic characterization of Ambrosia asymptomatic
virus 1 and evidence of other Tymovirales members in the
Oklahoma tallgrass prairie revealed by sequence analysis. Arch
Virol., in press.
Estrada-Peña, A., Ostfeld, R. S., Peterson, A. T., Poulin, R.,
& de la Fuente, J. (2014). Eﬀects of environmental change
on zoonotic disease risk: an ecological primer. Trends in
Parasitology 30:205–214.
Ezenwa, V. O., Godsey, M. S., King, R. J., & Guptill, S. C. (2006).
Avian diversity and West Nile virus: testing associations
between biodiversity and infectious disease risk. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:109–117.
Ezenwa, V. O. & Jolles, A. E. (2011). From host immunity to
pathogen invasion: the eﬀects of helminth coinfection on the
dynamics of microparasites. Integrated Comparative Biology
51(4):540–51.
Feldmann H. and Geisbert T.W. (2011) Ebola haemorrhagic
fever. The Lancet 377:849–62.
Ferreira LF; Araujo AJG; Confalonieri U; Nunez L. (1984) The
ﬁnding of Diphyllobothrium in human coprolites (4.100–1.950
BC) from northern Chile. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo
Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, v. 79, p. 775–780
Fletcher, J., Franz, D., & LeClerc, J. E. (2009). Healthy Plants:
Necessary for a Balanced ‘One Health’ Concept. Veterinaria
Italiana 45 (1) / January – March 2009. http://www.izs.it/
vet_italiana/2009/45_1/45_1.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). Plants.
http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/components/plants/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). (2013).
World Livestock 2013- Changing disease landscapes. Ed.
Slingenbergh, J. Rome.
Ford, S. E., Tripp, M. R. (1996). Disease and defense
mechanisms. In The Eastern Oyster: Crassostrea virginica,
ed. VS Kennedy, RLE Newell, AE Eble, pp. 581–660. College
Park: Univ. Md. Sea Grant

Garrett, K. A., Dobson, A. D .M., Kroschel, J., Natarajan, B.,
Orlandini, S., Tonnang, H. E. Z., & Valdivia, C. (2013). The
eﬀects of climate variability and the color of weather time
series on agricultural diseases and pests, and on decisions for
their management. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 170:216–227.
Gibbs, H. K., et al. (2010). Tropical forests were the primary
sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(38):16732–7.
Gilbert, M., Golding, N., Zhou, H., Wint, G.R.W., Robinson,
T.P., Tatem, A.J., Lai, S., Zhou, S., Jiang, H., Guo, D., Huang,
Z., Messina, J.P., Xiao, X., Linard, C., Boeckel, T.P. van, Martin,
V., Bhatt, S., Gething, P.W., Farrar, J.J., Hay, S.I. et al. 2014.
Predicting the risk of avian inﬂuenza A H7N9 infection in
live-poultry markets across Asia. Nature Communications 5:
4116.
Gottdenker, N.L., Streicker, D.G., Faust, C.L., & Carroll,
C.R. (2014). Anthropogenic land use change and infectious
diseases: A review of the evidence. Ecohealth.
Grace, D., Mutua, F., Ochungo, P., Kruska, R., Jones, K.,
Brierley, L., Lapar, L., Said, M., Herero, M., Phuc, P. M. Thao,
N. B., Akuku, I. & Ogutu, F. (2012). Mapping of poverty and
likely zoonoses hotspots. Zoonoses Project 4. Report to the
UK Department for International Development. Nairobi,
Kenya: ILRI.
Hacker, K. P., Seto, K. C., Costa, F., Corburn, J., Mitermayer, G.
R., Ko, A. I., Duik-Wasser, M. (2013). Urban slum structure:
integrating socioeconomic and land cover data to model slum
evolution in Salvador, Brazil. Int J Health Geogr. 12: 45.
Hansen, M. C., et al. (2013). High-Resolution Global
Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science
342(6160):850–853.
Harvell, C. D., Jordan-Dahlgren, E., Merkel, S., Rosenberg.
E., Raymundo, L., et al. (2007). Coral disease, environmental
drivers, and the balance between coral and microbial
associates. Oceanography 20(1):172–195
Harwood, J., Hall, A. (1990). Mass mortality in marine
mammals  – its implications for population-dynamics and
genet-ics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 5:254–257.
Hatcher, M. J., Dick, J. T. A., & Dunn, A. M. (2012). Disease
emergence and invasions. Functional Ecology 26, 1275–1287.
Hethcote, H. W., Wang, W., Han, L., Ma, Z. (2004). A
predator–prey model with infected prey. Theoretical Population
Biology 66(3), Pages 259–268.
Holdo, R. M., Sinclair. A. R. E., Dobson, A. P., Metzger, K.
L., Bolker, B. M., et al. (2009). A Disease-Mediated Trophic
Cascade in the Serengeti and its Implications for Ecosystem
PLoS Biol 7(9): e1000210.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000210.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 309

Holt, R.D. (2008). The community context of disease
emergence: could changes in predation be a key driver?
Pages 324–346 in R.S. Ostfeld, F. Keesing and V.T. Eviner,
eds. Infectious Disease Ecology: Eﬀects of Ecosystems on
Disease and of Disease on Ecosystems. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
Huchzermeyer,  F. W., Penrith, M. L., Elkan, P. W. (2001).
Multifactorial mortality in bongos and other wild ungulates
in the north of the Congo Republic. Onderstepoort J Vet Res
68(4):263–9.
Hudson, P. J., Dobson, A. P. & Newborn, D. (1998).
Prevention of population cycles by parasite removal. Science
282:2256–2258.

Keesing, F., Holt, R. D., & Ostfeld, R. S. (2006). Eﬀects of
species diversity on disease risk. Ecology Letters 9:485–498.
Keesing, F., Belden, L. K., Daszak, P., Dobson, A., Harvell, C.
D, Holt, R. D., Hudson, P., Jolles, A., Jones, K. E., Mitcell, C.
E., Myers, S. S., Bogich, T., Ostfeld, R. S. (2010). Impacts of
biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious
diseases. Nature 468(7324):647–52.
Khan, S. U., Gurley, E. S., Hossain, M. J., Nahar ,N., Sharker,
M. A. Y., et al. (2012). A Randomized Controlled Trial of
Interventions to Impede Date Palm Sap Contaminated by
Bats to Prevent Nipah Virus Transmission in Bangladesh.
PLoS ONE 7(8):e42689.

Ingram, D.S.  (2014). Biodiversity and plant pathogens
and conservation. APS Features. https://www.apsnet.org/
publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/ICPP98Ingram.aspx

Kock, R. (2014). Drivers of disease emergence and spread:
Is wildlife to blame?.Onderstepoort J Vet Res, North America,
81. Date accessed: 28 Jul. 2014. Available at: http://www.ojvr.
org/index.php/ojvr/article/view/739.

Johnson, P. T., Preston, D. L., Hoverman, J. T., & LaFonte, B.
E. (2013a). Host and parasite diversity jointly control disease
risk in complex communities. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 110:16916–16921.

Kock, R. (2013). Will the damage be done before we feel the
heat? Infectious disease emergence and human response.
Animal Health Research Reviews, pg. 1–6 doi:10.1017/
S1466252313000108

Johnson, P. T., Preston, D. L., Hoverman, J. T., & Richgels,
K. L. (2013b). Biodiversity decreases disease through
predictable changes in host community competence. Nature
494:230–233.

Kurath, G., Winton, J. (2011). Complex dynamics at the
interface between wild and domestic viruses of ﬁnﬁsh. Curr.
Opin. Virol. 1:73–80

Johnson, P. T., Rohr, J. R., Hoverman, J. T., Kellermanns, E.,
Bowerman, J. & Lunde, K. B. (2012). Living fast and dying
of infection: host life history drives interspeciﬁc variation in
infection and disease risk. Ecology Letters 15:235–242.
Jones, K. E., Patel, N. G., Levy, M. A., Storeygard, A., Balk,
D., Gittleman, J. L, & Daszak, P. (2008). Global trends in
emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451:990–993.
Jones, B. A., Grace, D., Kock, R., Alonso, S., Rushton, J., &
Said, M. Y. (2013). Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural
intensiﬁcation and environmental change, PNAS 110(21),
8399–8404. doi:10.1073/pnas.1208059110
Joseph, M. B., Mihaljevic, J. R., Orlofske, S. A., & Paull, S. H.
(2013). Does life history mediate changing disease risk when
communities disassemble? Ecology Letters 16:1405–1412.
Karesh, W. B. & Cook, R. A. (2005). The Human-Animal Link.
Foreign Aﬀairs 84(4):38–50.
Karesh, W. B., Cook, R. A., Bennett, E. L., Newcomb, J.
(2005). Wildlife trade and global disease emergence, Emerging
Infectious Diseases, 11: 7, 1000–1002.
Karesh, W. B., Dobson, A., Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Lubroth,
J., Dixon, M. A., Bennett, M., Aldrich, S., Harrington, T.,
Formenty, P., Loh, E. H., Machalaba, C. C., Thomas, M. J.,
& Heymann, D. L. (2012). Ecology of zoonoses: natural and
unnatural histories. Lancet 380:1936–1945.
Karesh, W. B., Smith, K. M., Asmussen, M. (2012). The
unregulated and informal trade in wildlife: implications for
biodiversity and health. In: Animal Health and Biodiversity –
Preparing for the Future. Compendium of the OIE Global
Conference on Wildlife.  23–25 February 2011. Paris, Pp
51–57. 

Lambin, E. F. & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change,
economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108(9):3465–72.
Leroy, E. M., Rouquet, P., Formenty, P., Souquiere, S.,
Kilbourne, A., Froment, J. -M., Bermejo, M., Smit, S., Karesh,
W., Swanepoel, R., Zaki, S. R., Rollin, P. E. (2004). Multiple
Ebola Virus Transmission Events and Rapid Decline of
Central African Wildlife. Science 303: 387–390.
Lessios, H. A., Robertson, D. R., Cubit, J. D. (1984). Spread
of Diadema mass mortality throughout the Caribbean. Science
226:335–37.
Liverani, M. et al. (2013). Understanding and Managing
Zoonotic Risk in the New Livestock Industries. Environmental
Health Perspectives 121(8):873–877.
(a) Luby, S.P., Gurley, E.S., Hossain, M.J. (2009). Transmisison
of Human Infection with Nipah Virus. Clinical Infectious
Diseases. 49(11):1743–1748.
(b) Luby, S.P., Hossain, M.J., Gurley, E.S., Ahmed, B.-N., Banu,
S., Khan, S.U., et al. (2009). Recurrent Zoonotic Transmission
of Nipah Virus into Humans, Bangladesh, 2001–2007.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 15(8).
Loh, EH, Olival, KJ, Zambrana-Torellio, C, Bogich, TL,
Johnson, CK, Mazet, JAK, Karesh, WB, Daszak, P. Targeting
transmission pathways for emerging zoonotic disease
surveillance and control. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases.
In press.
Luquet, E., Garner, T. W., Léna, J. P., Bruel, C., Joly,
P., Lengagne, T., Grolet, O., Plénet, S. (2012). Genetic
erosion in wild populations makes resistance to a
pathogen more costly. Evolution 66(6):1942–1952. doi:
10.1111/j.1558–5646.2011.01570.x.

310 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Mack, R., Simberloﬀ D., Lonsdale W., Evans H., Clout M. &
Bazzaz F. (2000). “Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology,
global consequences, and control.” Ecological Applications 10:
689–710.

Murray, K. A., & Daszak, P. (2013). Human ecology in
pathogenic landscapes: two hypotheses on how land use
change drives viral emergence. Current Opinion in Virology,
3(1), 79–83. doi:10.1016/j.coviro.2013.01.006

Machalaba C. and Karesh W.B. “Other Relevant International
Standards to the Control of Rabies”. Rabies Control – Towards
Sustainable Prevention at the Source. Compendium of the
OIE Global Conference on Rabies Control. 2012. Available
at: http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/d12061.pdf

Myers, S. S., Gaﬃkin, L., Golden, C. D., Ostfeld, R. S., Redford,
K. H., Ricketts, T. H., Turner, W. R., & Osofsky, S. A. (2013).
Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 110:18753–18760.

Marcogliese, D. J. (2002). Food webs and the transmission
of parasites to marine ﬁsh Parasitology. 124 Suppl:S83–99.
Marques, A. C. (1987). Human migration and the spread of
malaria in Brazil. Parasitol Today 3:166–170.
Mazza, G., Tricarico, E., Genovesi, P., & Gherardi,
F. (2013). “Biological invaders are threats to human
health: an overview.” Ethology Ecology & Evolution, DOI:
10.1080/03949370.2013.863225
McVicar, A. H. (2011). Ichthyophonus. In Fish Diseases and
Disorders, Vol. 3: Viral, Bacterial, and Fungal Infections, ed.
PTK Woo, DW Bruno, pp. 721–47. Cambridge, MA: CAB
Int. 2nd ed.
Meira, A.M., Cooper, M., Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B., Monti, J.A.,
Caramez, R.B. & Delitti, W.B.C. (Orgs) (2013). Febre maculosa:
dinâmica da doença, hospedeiros e vetores. Universidade de
São Paulo, ESALQ, 175p.
Messenger, A. M., Barnes, A. N., Gray, G. C. (2014). Reverse
Zoonotic Disease Transmission (Zooanthroponosis): A
Systematic Review of Seldom- Documented Human Biological
Threats to Animals. PLOS One. 9(2): e89055.
Miller, R.S., Farnsworth, M.L., & Malmberg J.L. (2013).
Diseases at the livestock-wildlife interface: Status, challenges,
and opportunities in the United States. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine. 110(2):119–132.
Mills, J.N. (2006) Biodiversity loss and emerging infectious
disease: An example from the rodent-borne hemorrhagic
fevers Biodiversity 7(1).
Ministério da Saúde. (2005). Guia de Vigilância
Epidemiológica – BVS Ministério da Saúde, 6ª edição –www.
bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes,
Ministério da Saúde. (2006). Guia de Vigilância
Epidemiológica – Ministério da Saúde, 7ª edição. www. bvsms.
saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes
Morozov, A. & Best, A. (2012). Predation on infected host
promotes evolutionary branching of virulence and pathogens’
biodiversity. Journal of theoretical biology. 307C:29–36.
Moura, J.F., Roges, E.M., Souza, R.L., Siciliano, S. & Rodrigues,
D.P. (2012). Marine Environment and Public Health,
Biodiversity Conservation and Utilization in a Diverse World,
Gbolagade Akeem Lameed (Ed.), ISBN: 978–953–51–0719–4,
InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/
biodiversity-conservation-and-utilization-in-a-diverse-world/
marine-environment-and-public-health
Mundt, C.C. (2002). Use of multiline cultivars and cultivar
mixtures for disease management. Annual Review of
Phytopathology 40:381–410.

Newcomb, J., Harrington, T., Aldrich, S. (2011). The Economic
Impact of Selected Infectious Disease Outbreaks. Cambridge,
MA: Bio Economic Research Associates.
Nóbrega, A.A., Garcia, M.H., Tatto, E., Obara, M.T., Costa, E.,
Sobel, J. & Araujo, W.N. (2009). Oral Transmission of Chagas
Disease by Consumption of Açaí Palm Fruit, Brazil. Emerg
Infect Dis. 15(4): 653–655.
Oliveira-Ferreira, J.,  Lacerda, M.V.,  Brasil, P.,  Ladislau,
J.L.,  Tauil, P.L.,  Daniel-Ribeiro, C.T. (2010). Malaria
in Brazil: an overview. Malar J.  30; 9:115. doi:
10.1186/1475–2875–9-115.
Olson, S.H., Reed, P., Cameron, K.N., Ssebide, B.J., Johnson,
C.K., Morse, S.S., Karesh, W.B., Mazet, J.A.K., Joly, D.O.
(2012). Dead or alive: animal sampling during Ebola
hemorrhagic fever outbreaks in humans. Emerg Health Threats
J 5:9134.
Ostfeld, R.S., & Holdt, R.D. (2004). Are predators good for
health? Evaluating evidence for top-down regulation of
zoonotic disease reservoirs. Ecol. Evironm 2(1): 13–20.
Ostfeld, R. S., & Keesing, F. (2012). Eﬀects of host diversity
on infectious disease. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics 43:157.
Pagan, I., Gonzalez-Jara, P. Moreno-Letelier, A., RodeloUrrego, M., Fraile, A., Pinero, D., & Garcia-Arenal, F. (2012).
Eﬀect of biodiversity changes in disease risk: exploring
disease emergence in a plant-virus system. PLoS Pathogens
8:e1002796. Doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002786.
Palma, R.E., Polop, J.J., Owen, R.D., Mills, J.N. (2012).
Ecology of rodent-associated hantaviruses in the southern
cone of South America: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and
Uruguay. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(2): 267–281.
Paterson, S., Wilson, K. & Pemberton, J. M. (1998). Major
histocompatibility complex variation associated with juvenile
survival and parasite resistance in a large unmanaged ungulate
population (Ovis aries L.). Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America 95, 3714–3719.
Patz, JP, Daszak, P., Tabor, G.M., Aguirre, A.A.; Pearl, M.,
Epstein, J., Wolfe, N.D., Kilpatrick, A.M., Foufopoulos, J.,
Molyneux, D., & Bradley, D.J. (2004). Unhealthy Landscapes:
Policy Recommendations on Land Use Change and Infectious
Disease. Environ Health Perspect. 112(10): 1092–1098.
Patz, J. A., Graczyk, T. K., Geller, N., & Vittor, A. Y. (2000).
Effects of environmental change on emerging parasitic
diseases. International journal for parasitology, 30(12),
1395–1405.
Pejchar, L. & Mooney, H. (2009). “Invasive Species, Ecosystem
Services, and Human Well-being.” Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 24:9, 497–504.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 311

Perkins, S., et al. (2010). “Invasion Biology and Parasitic
Infections.” IN O. Ostfeld, F. Keesing, and V. Eviner, eds.
Infectious Disease Ecology: Eﬀects of Ecosystems on Disease and of
Disease on Ecosystems (Princeton University Press), 179–207.
Pﬂeeger, T. G. & Mundt, C. E. (1998). Wheat rust severity as
aﬀected by plant density andspecies proportions in simple
communities of wheat and wild oats. Phytopathology 88:
708–714.
Phalan, B., et al. (2013). Crop expansion and conservation
priorities in tropical countries. PLoS One 8(1):e51759.
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D. (2005). Update on the
environmental and economic costs associated with alieninvasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics
52; 273–288.
Pinto, J., Bonacic, C., Hamilton-West, C., Romero, J., Lubroth,
J. (2008). Climate change and animal diseases in South
America. Rev. sci. tech. Oﬀ. int. Epiz., 27(2):599–613.
Poulin, R. (2010). Network analysis shinnig light on parasite
ecology and diversity. Trends in Parasitology 26:492–498.
Previtali, M. A., Ostfeld, R. S., Keesing, F., Jolles, A. E.,
Hanselmann, R. & Martin, L. B. (2012). Relationship between
pace of life and immune responses in wild rodents. Oikos
121:1483–1492.
Rahman, S.A. et al. (2013). Risk Factors for Nipah Virus
Infection among Pteropid Bats, Peninsular Malaysia. Emerging
Infectious Diseases 19(1).
Randolph, S. E. & Dobson, A. D. M. (2012). Pangloss revisited:
a critique o the dilutione eﬀect and the biodiversity-buﬀersdisease paradigm. Parasitology 139, 847–863.
Rapport, D. J., Daszak, P., Froment, A., Guegan, J. F., Laﬀerty,
K. D., Larigauderie, A., Mazumder, A., & Winding, A. (2009).
The impact of Anthropogenic stress at global and regional
scales on biodiversity and health. In Biodiversity change and
human health: From ecosystem services to spread of disease.
(Eds) Osvaldo E. Sala, Laura A. Meyerson, Camille Parmesan.
Island Press, Washington, USA
Reed, P.E., Mulangu, S., Cameron, K.N., Ondzie, A.U., Joly, D.,
et al. (2014). A New Approach for Monitoring Ebolavirus in
Wild Great Apes. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 8(9): e3143. doi:10.1371/
journal.pntd.0003143.
Richards, A. L., Jiang, J., Omulo, S., Dare, R., Abdirahman, K.,
Ali, A., Sharif, S. K., Feikin, D. R., Breiman, R. F., & M. Kariuki
Njenga, M. K. (2010). Human Infection with Rickettsia
felis, Kenya. Emerging Infectious Diseases 16(7), 1081–6.
doi:10.3201/eid1607.091885.
Rocha, F.L., Roque, A.L.R., Arrais, R.C., Santos, J.P., Lima,
V.S., Xavier, S.C.C., Cordeiro-Estrela, P., D’andrea, P.S., Jansen,
A.M. (2013). Trypanosoma cruzi TcI and TcII transmission
among wild carnivores, small mammals and dogs in a
conservation unit and surrounding areas, Brazil. Parasitology
(Cambridge. Online), v. 140, p. 160–170.
Roque, A.L.R., Xavier, S.C., D’Andrea, P.S. & Jassen, A.M.
(2008). Trypanosoma cruzi transmission cycle among wild
and domestic mammals in three areas of orally transmitted
Chagas disease outbreaks. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 95:742–749.

Rouquet, P., Froment, J.-F., Bermejo, M., Kilbourn, A., Karesh,
W.B., Reed, P., Kumulungui, B., Yaba, P., Delicat, A., Rollin,
P.E., Leroy, E.M. (2005). Wild Animal Mortality Monitoring
and Human Ebola Outbreaks, Gabon and Republic of Congo,
2001–2003. Emerging Infectious Diseases 11(2):283–290.
Salkeld, D. J., Padgett, K. A., & Jones, J. H. (2013). A metaanalysis suggesting that the relationship between biodiversity
and risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission is idiosyncratic.
Ecology Letters 16:679–686.
Santini, A., et al. (2013). “Biogeographical patterns and
determinants of invasion by forest pathogens in Europe.”
New Phytologist 197: 238–250.
Schneider, M.C., Aron, J., Santos-Burgoa, C., Uieda, W., RuizVelazco, S. (2001). Common vampire bat attacks on humans
in a village of the Amazon region of Brazil. Cad. Saúde Pública,
Rio de Janeiro, 17(6):1531–1536.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010).
Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montreal.
Seto, K., Güneralp, B., Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts of
urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity
and carbon pools. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16 083–16
088. 
Shin, Y. J., Rochet, M.J., Jennings, S., Field, J.G. & Gislason, H.
(2005). Using size-based indicators to evaluate the ecosystem
eﬀects of ﬁshing ICES Journal of Marine Science 62(3) :
384–396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.004
Singh, N., Singh, O. P. & Soan, V. (1989). Mosquito breeding
in rice ﬁelds and its role in malaria transmission in Mandla
district, M.P. Indian J Malariology, 26(4):191–8.
Smith, K. M., Loh, E., Rostal, M., Zambrana-Torrelio, C.,
Daszak, P. (2013). Pathogens, pests and economics: Drivers
of honey bee colony declines and losses. EcoHealth, 10(4):
434–45.
Stentiford, G. D., Neil, D. M., Peeler, E. J., Shields, J. D., Small,
H. J., et al. (2012). Disease will limit future food supply from
the global crustacean ﬁshery and aquaculture sectors. J.
Invertebr. Pathol. 110:141–57.
Stoett, P. (2010). Framing bioinvasion: biodiversity, climate
change, security, trade, and global governance. Global
Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International
Organizations, 16(1), 103–120.
Strieder, M.N., Santos, J.E.  &  Vieira, E.M.  (2006).
Distribution, abundance and diversity of Simuliidae (Diptera)
in an impacted watershed in southern Brazil.  Rev. Bras.
Entomol vol.50, n.1, pp. 119–124. ISSN 0085–5626.  http://
dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0085–56262006000100018.
Sutherland, K. P., Porter, J. W., Torres, C. (2004). Disease
and immunity in Caribbean and Indo-Paciﬁc zooxanthellate
corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 266: 273–302.
Sutherst, R. W. (1993). Arthropods as disease vectors in a
changing environment. Environmental Change and Human
Health. Ciba Foundation Sym, 175, 124–145.

312 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Suzán, G., Marcé, E., Giermakowski, J. T., Mills, J. N., Ceballos,
G., Ostfeld, R. S., Armién, B., Pascale, J. M., & Yates, T. L.
(2009). Experimental evidence for reduced rodent diversity
causing increased hantavirus prevalence. PLoS One 4:e5461.
Swei, A., Rowley, J. J., Rödder, D., Diesmos, M. L., Diesmos, A.
C., Briggs, C. J., Brown, R., Cao, T. T., Cheng, T. L., & Chong, R.
A. (2011). Is chytridiomycosis an emerging infectious disease
in Asia? PLoS One 6:e23179.
Tadei, W. P., Thatcher, B. D., Santos, J. M. Scarpassa, V. M.,
Rodrigues, I. B. & Rafael, M. S. (1998). Ecologic observation
on anopheline vectors of malaria in the Brazilian Amazon.
Am J Trop Med Hyg 59:325–335.
Takahashi, C. K., Lourenço, N. G. G. S., Lopes, T. F., Rall, V.
L. M. & Lopes, C. A .M. (2008). “Ballast water: a review of
the impact on the world public health.” Journal of Venomous
Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases 14 (3): 393–408.
Taylor, L. H., Latham, S. M. & Mark, E. (2001). Risk factors
for human disease emergence. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
356:983–989.
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nuñez, P., Rao, M.,  Shahabuddin, G.,
Orihuela, G., Riveros, M., Ascanio, R.,  Adler, G.H., Lambert,
D.T.,  Balbas, L. (2001). Ecological Meltdown in PredatorFree Forest Fragments Science  30  Vol. 294  no. 5548  pp.
1923–1926 
Thomson, G. R, Penrith, M.-L., Atkinson, M. W., Atkinson,
S. J., Cassidy, D. & Osofsky, S. A. (2013). Balancing Livestock
Production and Wildlife Conservation in and around Southern
Africa’s Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Transboundary and
Emerging Diseases. 60:492–506.
Valle, D., & Clark, J. (2013). Conservation eﬀorts may increase
malaria burden in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS One 8:e57519.
Van Gils, J. A, Munster, V. J., Radersma, R., Liefhebber,
D., Fouchier, R. A. M., & Klaassen, M. (2007). Hampered
foraging and migratory performance in swans infected with
low-pathogenic avian inﬂuenza A virus. PLoS One, 2(1), e184.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000184
Varella, C. L., Xavier, S. C., Herrera, H. M., Jansen, A. M.
(2009). The ecology of the Trypanosoma cruzi transmission
cycle: Dispersion of Zymodeme 3(Z3) in wild hosts of
Brazilian biomes. Veterinary Parasitology, 10:19–24.
Vasconcelos, C. H., Novo, E.M.L.M. & Donalisio, M.R. (2006).
Uso do sensoriamento remoto para estudar a inﬂuência de
alterações ambientais na distribuição da malária na Amazônia
brasileira. Cad. Saúde Pública, 22(3): 517–526.
Vilà, M., Basnou, C., Pyšek, P., Josefsson, M., Genovesi,
P., Gollasch, S., Nentwig, W., Olenin, S., Roques, A., Roy,
D., & Hulme, P. E. (2010). How well do we understand the
impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A panEuropean, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 8: 135–144.

Vittor, A. Y., Pan, W., Robert, H., Gilman, R. H., Tielsch,
J., Glass, G., Shields, T., Sánchez-Lozano, W., Pinedo, V. V.,
Salas-Cobos, E., Silvia Flores, S. & Patz. J.A. (2009). Linking
deforestation to malaria in the Amazon: Characterization of
the breeding habitat of the principal malaria vector, Anopheles
darling. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 81(1): 5–12.
Vourc’h, G., Plantard, O. & Morand, S. (2012). How Does
Biodiversity Inﬂuence the Ecology of Infectious Disease?
Dordrecht: Springer.
Walsh, P. D., Abernethy, K. A., Bermejo, M., Beyers, R., De
Wachter, P., Akou, M. E., ... & Wilkie, D. S. (2003). Catastrophic
ape decline in western equatorial Africa. Nature, 422(6932),
611–614.
Wolfe, N. D., et al. (2005) Bushmeat hunting, deforestation
and prediction of zoonotic emergence. Emerging Infectious
Diseases 11:1822–1827.
Wood, C. L. & Laﬀerty, K. D. 2013. Biodiversity and disease:
a synthesis of ecological perspectives on Lyme disease
transmission. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:239–247.
Wood, C. L., Laﬀerty, K. D., DeLeo, G., Young, H. S., Hudson,
P. J. & Kuris, A. M. (2014). Does biodiversity protect humans
against infectious disease? Ecology 95:817–832.
World Bank (2012). People, pathogens and our
planet: the economics of One Health. Washington,
DC: World Bank. Available at: http://documents.
w o r l d b a n k . o r g / c u ra t e d / e n / 2 0 1 2 / 0 6 / 1 6 3 6 0 9 4 3 /
people-pathogens-planet-economics-one-health
World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). One year into
the Ebola outbreak: a deadly, tenacious and unforgiving virus.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/one-year-report/
ebola-report-1-year.pdf?ua=1
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). (2012)
Guidelines for Assessing the Risk of Non-Native Species
Becoming Invasive. Paris, France. http://www.oie.int/
ﬁleadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientiﬁc_expertise/docs/pdf/
OIEGuidelines_NonNativeAnimals_2012.pdf
Young, H., R. H. Griﬃn, C. L. Wood, & C. L. Nunn. (2013).
Does habitat disturbance increase infectious disease risk for
primates? Ecology Letters 16:656–663.
Young, H. S., Dirzo, R., Helgen, K. M., McCauley, D. J.,
Billeter, S. A., Kosoy, M. Y. Osikowicz, L. M., Salkeld, D. J.,
Young, T. P., & Dittmar, K. (2014). Declines in large wildlife
increase landscape-level prevalence of rodent-borne disease
in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111:7036–7041.

Chapter 8
Aichbhaumik N, Zoratti EM, Strickler R, Wegienka G,
Ownby DR, Havstad S, Johnson CC. 2008. Prenatal exposure
to household pets influences fetal immunoglobulin E
production. Clin Exp Allergy. 38(11): 1787–1794.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 313

Andersson MA, Mikkola R, Kroppenstedt RM, Rainey FA,
Peltola J, Helin J, Sivonen K, Salkinoja-Salonen MS. 1998.
The mitochondrial toxin produced by Streptomyces griseus
strains isolated from an indoor environment is valinomycin.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 64(12): 4767–4773.

Cani PD, Bibiloni R, Knauf C, Waget A, Neyrinck AM,
Delzenne NM, Burcelin R. 2008. Changes in gut microbiota
control metabolic endotoxemia-induced inﬂammation in
high-fat diet-induced obesity and diabetes in mice. Diabetes.
57(6): 1470–1481.

Aspinall P, Mavros P, Coyne R, Roe J. 2013. The urban brain:
analysing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG. Br J
Sports Med.

Carrigan MA, Uryasev O, Frye CB, Eckman BL, Myers CR,
Hurley TD, Benner SA. 2014. Hominids adapted to metabolize
ethanol long before human-directed fermentation. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A. 112(2): 458–463.

Atarashi K, Tanoue T, Shima T, Imaoka A, Kuwahara T,
Momose Y, Cheng G, Yamasaki S, Saito T, Ohba Y, et al.
2011. Induction of Colonic Regulatory T Cells by Indigenous
Clostridium Species. Science. 331: 337–341.
Axelsson E, Ratnakumar A, Arendt ML, Maqbool K, Webster
MT, Perloski M, Liberg O, Arnemo JM, Hedhammar A,
Lindblad-Toh K. 2013. The genomic signature of dog
domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet. Nature.
495(7441): 360–364.

Claesson MJ, Jeﬀery IB, Conde S, Power SE, O’Connor
EM, Cusack S, Harris HM, Coakley M, Lakshminarayanan
B, O’Sullivan O, et al. 2012. Gut microbiota composition
correlates with diet and health in the elderly. Nature.
488(7410): 178–184.
Colotta F, Allavena P, Sica A, Garlanda C, Mantovani A. 2009.
Cancer-related inﬂammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer:
links to genetic instability. Carcinogenesis. 30(7): 1073–1081.

Babu S, Blauvelt CP, Kumaraswami V, Nutman TB. 2006.
Regulatory networks induced by live parasites impair
both Th1 and Th2 pathways in patent lymphatic ﬁlariasis:
implications for parasite persistence. J Immunol. 176(5):
3248–3256.

Comas I, Coscolla M, Luo T, Borrell S, Holt KE, KatoMaeda M, Parkhill J, Malla B, Berg S, Thwaites G, et al.
2013. Out-of-Africa migration and Neolithic coexpansion
of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with modern humans. Nat
Genet. 45(10): 1176–1182.

Bach JF. 2002. The eﬀect of infections on susceptibility to
autoimmune and allergic diseases. N Engl J Med. 347(12):
911–920.

Correale J, Farez M. 2007. Association between parasite
infection and immune responses in multiple sclerosis. Ann
Neurol. 61(2): 97–108.

Bailey MT, Dowd SE, Galley JD, Hufnagle AR, Allen RG, Lyte
M. 2011. Exposure to a social stressor alters the structure of
the intestinal microbiota: implications for stressor-induced
immunomodulation. Brain Behav Immun. 25(3): 397–407.

Correale J, Farez MF. 2013. Parasite infections in multiple
sclerosis modulate immune responses through a retinoic aciddependent pathway. J Immunol. 191(7): 3827–3837.

Balkwill F. 2009. Tumour necrosis factor and cancer. Nat Rev
Cancer. 9(5): 361–371.
Benn CS, Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Bjorksten B, Aaby P. 2004.
Cohort study of sibling eﬀect, infectious diseases, and risk
of atopic dermatitis during ﬁrst 18 months of life. Brit Med
J. 328: 1223–1228.
Borody TJ, Brandt LJ, Paramsothy S, Agrawal G. 2013. Fecal
microbiota transplantation: a new standard treatment option
for Clostridium diﬃcile infection. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther.
11(5): 447–449.
Bowers RM, McLetchie S, Knight R, Fierer N. 2011. Spatial
variability in airborne bacterial communities across land-use
types and their relationship to the bacterial communities of
potential source environments. ISME J. 5(4): 601–612.
Breidt F, McFeeters RF, Perez-Diaz I, Lee CW. 2013. Fermented
vegetables. In: Doyle MP and Buchanan, RL editors. Food
Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers. Washington:
ASM Press. p.
Bremner SA, Carey IM, DeWilde S, Richards N, Maier WC,
Hilton SR, Strachan DP, Cook DG. 2008. Infections presenting
for clinical care in early life and later risk of hay fever in two
UK birth cohorts. Allergy. 63(3): 274–283.
Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Gasbarrini A. 2014. Fecal Microbiota
Transplantation for the Treatment of Clostridium diﬃcile
Infection: A Systematic Review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 48(8):
693–702.

Cuzick J, Otto F, Baron JA, Brown PH, Burn J, Greenwald P,
Jankowski J, La Vecchia C, Meyskens F, Senn HJ, et al. 2009.
Aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inﬂammatory drugs for cancer
prevention: an international consensus statement. Lancet
Oncol. 10(5): 501–507.
Dadvand P, de Nazelle A, Figueras F, Basagana X, Su J, Amoly
E, Jerrett M, Vrijheid M, Sunyer J, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. 2012.
Green space, health inequality and pregnancy. Environ Int.
40: 110–115.
De Filippo C, Cavalieri D, Di Paola M, Ramazzotti M, Poullet
JB, Massart S, Collini S, Pieraccini G, Lionetti P. 2010. Impact
of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative
study in children from Europe and rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A. 107(33): 14691–14696.
Dowlati Y, Herrmann N, Swardfager W, Liu H, Sham L, Reim
EK, Lanctot KL. 2010. A meta-analysis of cytokines in major
depression. Biol Psychiatry. 67(5): 446–457.
Dunder T, Tapiainen T, Pokka T, Uhari M. 2007. Infections
in child day care centers and later development of asthma,
allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis: prospective follow-up
survey 12 years after controlled randomized hygiene
intervention. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161(10): 972–977.
Dunn RR, Fierer N, Henley JB, Leﬀ JW, Menninger HL. 2013.
Home life: factors structuring the bacterial diversity found
within and between homes. PLoS One. 8(5): e64133.

314 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Ege MJ, Mayer M, Normand AC, Genuneit J, Cookson WO,
Braun-Fahrlander C, Heederik D, Piarroux R, von Mutius
E. 2011. Exposure to environmental microorganisms and
childhood asthma. N Engl J Med. 364(8): 701–709.
Erdman SE, Rao VP, Olipitz W, Taylor CL, Jackson EA,
Levkovich T, Lee CW, Horwitz BH, Fox JG, Ge Z, et al. 2010.
Unifying roles for regulatory T cells and inﬂammation in
cancer. Int J Cancer. 126(7): 1651–1665.
Fahlen A, Engstrand L, Baker BS, Powles A, Fry L. 2012.
Comparison of bacterial microbiota in skin biopsies from
normal and psoriatic skin. Arch Dermatol Res. 304(1): 15–22.
Feuerer M, Herrero L, Cipolletta D, Naaz A, Wong J, Nayer
A, Lee J, Goldﬁne AB, Benoist C, Shoelson S, et al. 2009.
Lean, but not obese, fat is enriched for a unique population
of regulatory T cells that aﬀect metabolic parameters. Nat
Med. 15(8): 930–939.
Forsberg KJ, Reyes A, Wang B, Selleck EM, Sommer MO,
Dantas G. 2012. The shared antibiotic resistome of soil
bacteria and human pathogens. Science. 337(6098):
1107–1111.
Frei R, Akdis M, O’Mahony L. 2015. Prebiotics, probiotics,
synbiotics, and the immune system: experimental data and
clinical evidence. Curr Opin Gastroenterol.
Fujimura KE, Johnson CC, Ownby DR, Cox MJ, Brodie
EL, Havstad SL, Zoratti EM, Woodcroft KJ, Bobbitt KR,
Wegienka G, et al. 2010. Man’s best friend? The eﬀect of pet
ownership on house dust microbial communities. J Allergy
Clin Immunol. 126(2): 410–412, 412 e411–413.
Gilbert SF, Sapp J, Tauber AI. 2012. A symbiotic view of life:
we have never been individuals. Q Rev Biol. 87(4): 325–341.
Gilham C, Peto J, Simpson J, Roman E, Eden TO, Greaves
MF, Alexander FE. 2005. Day care in infancy and risk of
childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: ﬁndings from UK
case-control study. BMJ. 330(7503): 1294.
Gimeno D, Kivimaki M, Brunner EJ, Elovainio M, De Vogli R,
Steptoe A, Kumari M, Lowe GD, Rumley A, Marmot MG, et
al. 2009. Associations of C-reactive protein and interleukin-6
with cognitive symptoms of depression: 12-year follow-up of
the Whitehall II study. Psychol Med. 39(3): 413–423.
Goldberg RB. 2009. Cytokine and cytokine-like inﬂammation
markers, endothelial dysfunction, and imbalanced coagulation
in development of diabetes and its complications. J Clin
Endocrinol Metab. 94(9): 3171–3182.
Grainger JR, Smith KA, Hewitson JP, McSorley HJ, Harcus
Y, Filbey KJ, Finney CAM, Greenwood EJD, Knox DP, Wilson
MS, et al. 2010. Helminth secretions induce de novo T cell
Foxp3 expression and regulatory function through the TGFbeta pathway. J Exp Med. 207(11): 2331–2341.
Greaves M. 2006. Infection, immune responses and the
aetiology of childhood leukaemia. Nat Rev Cancer. 6(3):
193–203.
Hang L, Setiawan T, Blum AM, Urban J, Stoyanoﬀ K, Arihiro
S, Reinecker HC, Weinstock JV. 2010. Heligmosomoides
polygyrus infection can inhibit colitis through direct
interaction with innate immunity. J Immunol. 185(6):
3184–3189.

Hanski I, von Hertzen L, Fyhrquist N, Koskinen K, Torppa
K, Laatikainen T, Karisola P, Auvinen P, Paulin L, Makela MJ,
et al. 2012. Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota,
and allergy are interrelated. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109(21):
8334–8339.
Harnett MM, Melendez AJ, Harnett W. 2010. The therapeutic
potential of the ﬁlarial nematode-derived immunodulator,
ES-62 in inﬂammatory disease. Clin Exp Immunol. 159(3):
256–267.
Hehemann JH, Kelly AG, Pudlo NA, Martens EC, Boraston
AB. 2012. Bacteria of the human gut microbiome catabolize
red seaweed glycans with carbohydrate-active enzyme
updates from extrinsic microbes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
109(48): 19786–19791.
Heijtz RD, Wang S, Anuar F, Qian Y, Bjorkholm B, Samuelsson
A, Hibberd ML, Forssberg H, Pettersson S. 2011. Normal gut
microbiota modulates brain development and behavior. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108(7): 3047–3052.
Hesselmar B, Sjoberg F, Saalman R, Aberg N, Adlerberth I,
Wold AE. 2013. Paciﬁer Cleaning Practices and Risk of Allergy
Development. Pediatrics. 131(6): e1829-e1837.
Hildebrand F, Nguyen TL, Brinkman B, Yunta RG, Cauwe
B, Vandenabeele P, Liston A, Raes J. 2013. Inﬂammationassociated enterotypes, host genotype, cage and
inter-individual eﬀects drive gut microbiota variation in
common laboratory mice. Genome Biol. 14(1): R4.
Hong HA, Khaneja R, Tam NM, Cazzato A, Tan S, Urdaci M,
Brisson A, Gasbarrini A, Barnes I, Cutting SM. 2009. Bacillus
subtilis isolated from the human gastrointestinal tract. Res
Microbiol. 160(2): 134–143.
Howren MB, Lamkin DM, Suls J. 2009. Associations of
depression with C-reactive protein, IL-1, and IL-6: a metaanalysis. Psychosom Med. 71(2): 171–186.
Karlsson F, Tremaroli V, Nielsen J, Backhed F. 2013. Assessing
the human gut microbiota in metabolic diseases. Diabetes.
62(10): 3341–3349.
Karvonen AM, Hyvarinen A, Rintala H, Korppi M, Taubel
M, Doekes G, Gehring U, Renz H, Pfeﬀerle PI, Genuneit J, et
al. 2014. Quantity and diversity of environmental microbial
exposure and development of asthma: a birth cohort study.
Allergy. 69(8): 1092–1101.
Kembel SW, Jones E, Kline J, Northcutt D, Stenson J, Womack
AM, Bohannan BJ, Brown GZ, Green JL. 2012. Architectural
design inﬂuences the diversity and structure of the built
environment microbiome. ISME J. 6(8): 1469–1479.
Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, Ramirez-Villegas J,
Guarino L, Jarvis A, Rieseberg LH, Struik PC. 2014. Increasing
homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for
food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 111(11): 4001–4006.
Kong HH, Oh J, Deming C, Conlan S, Grice EA, Beatson
MA, Nomicos E, Polley EC, Komarow HD, Murray PR, et
al. 2012. Temporal shifts in the skin microbiome associated
with disease ﬂares and treatment in children with atopic
dermatitis. Genome Res. 22(5): 850–859.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 315

Kron MA, Metwali A, Vodanovic-Jankovic S, Elliott D. 2012.
Nematode AsnRS resolves intestinal inﬂammation in murine
T-cell transfer colitis. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 20(2): 276–281.
Lachowycz K, Jones AP. 2014. Does walking explain
associations between access to greenspace and lower
mortality? Soc Sci Med. 107: 9–17.
Lakritz JR, Poutahidis T, Levkovich T, Varian BJ, Ibrahim
YM, Chatzigiagkos A, Mirabal S, Alm EJ, Erdman SE. 2014.
Beneﬁcial bacteria stimulate host immune cells to counteract
dietary and genetic predisposition to mammary cancer in
mice. Int J Cancer. 135(3): 529–540.
Leroy F, Geyzen A, Janssens M, De Vuyst L, Scholliers P.
2013. Meat fermentation at the crossroads of innovation
and tradition: A historical outlook. Trends in Food Science
& Technology. 31: 130–137.
Lewis MC, Inman CF, Patel D, Schmidt B, Mulder I, Miller
B, Gill BP, Pluske J, Kelly D, Stokes CR, et al. 2012. Direct
experimental evidence that early-life farm environment
inﬂuences regulation of immune responses. Pediatr Allergy
Immunol. 23(3): 265–269.
Linz B, Balloux F, Moodley Y, Manica A, Liu H, Roumagnac
P, Falush D, Stamer C, Prugnolle F, van der Merwe SW, et
al. 2007. An African origin for the intimate association
between humans and Helicobacter pylori. Nature. 445(7130):
915–918.
Lu MF, Xiao ZT, Zhang HY. 2013. Where do health beneﬁts
of ﬂavonoids come from? Insights from ﬂavonoid targets and
their evolutionary history. Biochem Biophys Res Commun.
434(4): 701–704.
Lynch SV, Wood RA, Boushey H, Bacharier LB, Bloomberg
GR, Kattan M, O’Connor GT, Sandel MT, Calatroni A, Matsui
E, et al. 2014. Eﬀects of early-life exposure to allergens and
bacteria on recurrent wheeze and atopy in urban children. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 134(3): 593–601.
Ma X, Buffler PA, Selvin S, Matthay KK, Wiencke JK,
Wiemels JL, Reynolds P. 2002. Daycare attendance and risk
of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Cancer.
86(9): 1419–1424.
Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, de Vries S,
Spreeuwenberg P. 2006. Green space, urbanity, and health:
how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health.
60(7): 587–592.
Maas J, Verheij RA, Spreeuwenberg P, Groenewegen PP.
2008. Physical activity as a possible mechanism behind the
relationship between green space and health: a multilevel
analysis. BMC Public Health. 8: 206.
Mathers CD, Loncar D. 2006. Projections of global mortality
and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 3(11):
e442.
McDade TW. 2012. Early environments and the ecology
of inﬂammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109 Suppl 2:
17281–17288.
McDade TW, Borja JB, Adair L, Kuzawa CW. 2012a.
Depressive symptoms are not associated with inﬂammation
in younger and older adults in the Philippines. Evolution,
Medicine and Public Health. 2013(1): 18–23.

McDade TW, Tallman PS, Madimenos FC, Liebert MA, Cepon
TJ, Sugiyama LS, Snodgrass JJ. 2012b. Analysis of variability
of high sensitivity C-reactive protein in lowland ecuador
reveals no evidence of chronic low-grade inﬂammation. Am
J Hum Biol. 24(5): 675–681.
McFall-Ngai M, Hadﬁeld MG, Bosch TC, Carey HV, DomazetLoso T, Douglas AE, Dubilier N, Eberl G, Fukami T, Gilbert SF,
et al. 2013. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for
the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 110(9): 3229–3236.
McGovern PE. 2009. Uncorking the past: the quest for wine,
beer, and other alcoholic beverages. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
McGovern PE, Zhang J, Tang J, Zhang Z, Hall GR, Moreau
RA, Nunez A, Butrym ED, Richards MP, Wang CS, et al. 2004.
Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historic China. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 101(51): 17593–17598.
Messaoudi M, Lalonde R, Violle N, Javelot H, Desor D,
Nejdi A, Bisson JF, Rougeot C, Pichelin M, Cazaubiel M,
et al. 2011. Assessment of psychotropic-like properties of
a probiotic formulation (Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and
Biﬁdobacterium longum R0175) in rats and human subjects.
Br J Nutr. 105(5): 755–764.
Miller AH, Haroon E, Raison CL, Felger JC. 2013. Cytokine
targets in the brain: impact on neurotransmitters and
neurocircuits. Depress Anxiety. 30(4): 297–306.
Mitchell R, Popham F. 2008. Eﬀect of exposure to natural
environment on health inequalities: an observational
population study. Lancet. 372(9650): 1655–1660.
Mozaﬀarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. 2011.
Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in
women and men. N Engl J Med. 364(25): 2392–2404.
Mulder IE, Schmidt B, Lewis M, Delday M, Stokes CR,
Bailey M, Aminov RI, Gill BP, Pluske JR, Mayer CD, et al.
2011. Restricting microbial exposure in early life negates
the immune beneﬁts associated with gut colonization in
environments of high microbial diversity. PLoS One. 6(12):
e28279.
Mulder IE, Schmidt B, Stokes CR, Lewis M, Bailey M,
Aminov RI, Prosser JI, Gill BP, Pluske JR, Mayer CD, et al.
2009. Environmentally-acquired bacteria inﬂuence microbial
diversity and natural innate immune responses at gut
surfaces. BMC Biol. 7: 79.
Ngure FM, Humphrey JH, Mbuya MN, Majo F, Mutasa K,
Govha M, Mazarura E, Chasekwa B, Prendergast AJ, Curtis
V, et al. 2013. Formative research on hygiene behaviors and
geophagy among infants and young children and implications
of exposure to fecal bacteria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 89(4):
709–716.
Nielsen HB, Almeida M, Juncker AS, Rasmussen S, Li J,
Sunagawa S, Plichta DR, Gautier L, Pedersen AG, Le Chatelier
E, et al. 2014. Identiﬁcation and assembly of genomes and
genetic elements in complex metagenomic samples without
using reference genomes. Nat Biotechnol. (online 6 July
2014; DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2939).

316 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

O’Byrne KJ, Dalgleish AG, Browning MJ, Steward WP, Harris
AL. 2000. The relationship between angiogenesis and the
immune response in carcinogenesis and the progression of
malignant disease. Eur J Cancer. 36(2): 151–169.
Osada Y, Kanazawa T. 2010. Parasitic helminths: new weapons
against immunological disorders. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2010:
743–758.
Ownby DR, Johnson CC, Peterson EL. 2002. Exposure
to dogs and cats in the ﬁrst year of life and risk of allergic
sensitization at 6 to 7 years of age. JAMA. 288(8): 963–972.
Pakarinen J, Hyvarinen A, Salkinoja-Salonen M, Laitinen S,
Nevalainen A, Makela MJ, Haahtela T, von Hertzen L. 2008.
Predominance of Gram-positive bacteria in house dust in the
low-allergy risk Russian Karelia. Environ Microbiol. 10(12):
3317–3325.

Riedler J, Braun-Fahrlander C, Eder W, Schreuer M, Waser M,
Maisch S, Carr D, Schierl R, Nowak D, von Mutius E. 2001.
Exposure to farming in early life and development of asthma
and allergy: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 358(9288):
1129–1133.
Rook GAW. 2013. Regulation of the immune system by
biodiversity from the natural environment: An ecosystem
service essential to health. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 110(46):
18360–18367.
Rook GAW, Dalgleish A. 2011. Infection, immunoregulation
and cancer. Immunological Reviews. 240: 141–159.
Rook GAW, Lowry CA, Raison CL. 2013. Microbial Old
Friends, immunoregulation and stress resilience. Evolution,
Medicine and Public Health. EMPH (2013)(1): 46–64
doi:10.1093/emph/eot1004.

Parker W, Ollerton J. 2013. Evolutionary biology and
anthropology suggest biome reconstitution as a necessary
approach toward dealing with immune disorders. Evol Med
Public Health. 2013(1): 89–103.

Rook GAW, Lowry CA, Raison CL. 2014a. Hygiene and other
early childhood inﬂuences on the subsequent function of the
immune system. Brain Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
brainres.2014.04.004.

Penders J, Gerhold K, Stobberingh EE, Thijs C, Zimmermann
K, Lau S, Hamelmann E. 2013. Establishment of the
intestinal microbiota and its role for atopic dermatitis in
early childhood. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 132(3): 601–607.

Rook GAW, Raison CL, Lowry CA. 2014b. Microbial “Old
Friends”, immunoregulation and socio-economic status.
Clinical and Experimental Immunology. 177(1): 1–12.

Porta C, Larghi P, Rimoldi M, Totaro MG, Allavena P,
Mantovani A, Sica A. 2009. Cellular and molecular pathways
linking inﬂammation and cancer. Immunobiology. 214(9–
10): 761–777.
Poutahidis T, Kleinewietfeld M, Smillie C, Levkovich T,
Perrotta A, Bhela S, Varian BJ, Ibrahim YM, Lakritz JR,
Kearney SM, et al. 2013. Microbial reprogramming inhibits
Western diet-associated obesity. PLoS One. 8(7): e68596.
Price KC, Hyde JS, Coe CL. 1999. Matrilineal transmission of
birth weight in the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) across
several generations. Obstet Gynecol. 94(1): 128–134.
Radon K, Windstetter D, Poluda AL, Mueller B, von Mutius E,
Koletzko S. 2007. Contact with farm animals in early life and
juvenile inﬂammatory bowel disease: a case-control study.
Pediatrics. 120(2): 354–361.
Raison CL, Borisov AS, Majer M, Drake DF, Pagnoni G,
Woolwine BJ, Vogt GJ, Massung B, Miller AH. 2009.
Activation of central nervous system inﬂammatory pathways
by interferon-alpha: relationship to monoamines and
depression. Biol Psychiatry. 65(4): 296–303.
Ramirez-Puebla ST, Servin-Garciduenas LE, Jimenez-Marin B,
Bolanos LM, Rosenblueth M, Martinez J, Rogel MA, OrmenoOrrillo E, Martinez-Romero E. 2013. Gut and root microbiota
commonalities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 79(1): 2–9.
Rastogi T, Devesa S, Mangtani P, Mathew A, Cooper N, Kao
R, Sinha R. 2008. Cancer incidence rates among South Asians
in four geographic regions: India, Singapore, UK and US. Int
J Epidemiol. 37(1): 147–160.
Rehman A, Lepage P, Nolte A, Hellmig S, Schreiber S, Ott SJ.
2010. Transcriptional activity of the dominant gut mucosal
microbiota in chronic inﬂammatory bowel disease patients.
J Med Microbiol. 59(Pt 9): 1114–1122.

Rothman SW. 1981. Presence of Clostridium diﬃcile toxin in
guinea pigs with penicillin-associated colitis. Med Microbiol
Immunol. 169(3): 187–196.
Round JL, Mazmanian SK. 2010. Inducible Foxp3+
regulatory T-cell development by a commensal bacterium of
the intestinal microbiota. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107(27):
12204–12209.
Sahlberg B, Wieslander G, Norback D. 2010. Sick building
syndrome in relation to domestic exposure in Sweden--a
cohort study from 1991 to 2001. Scand J Public Health.
38(3): 232–238.
Schele E, Benrick A, Grahnemo L, Egecioglu E, Anesten F,
Palsdottir V, Jansson JO. 2013a. Inter-relation between
interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6 and body fat regulating circuits of
the hypothalamic arcuate nucleus. J Neuroendocrinol. 25(6):
580–589.
Schele E, Grahnemo L, Anesten F, Hallen A, Backhed F,
Jansson JO. 2013b. The gut microbiota reduces leptin
sensitivity and the expression of the obesity-suppressing
neuropeptides proglucagon (Gcg) and brain-derived
neurotrophic factor (Bdnf) in the central nervous system.
Endocrinology. 154(10): 3643–3651.
Schneider MK, Luscher G, Jeanneret P, Arndorfer M, Ammari
Y, Bailey D, Balazs K, Baldi A, Choisis JP, Dennis P, et al. 2014.
Gains to species diversity in organically farmed ﬁelds are not
propagated at the farm level. Nat Commun. 5: 4151.
Seedorf H, Griﬃn NW, Ridaura VK, Reyes A, Cheng J, Rey
FE, Smith MI, Simon GM, Scheﬀrahn RH, Woebken D, et al.
2014. Bacteria from diverse habitats colonize and compete
in the mouse gut. Cell. 159(2): 253–266.
Selhub EM, Logan AC, Bested AC. 2014. Fermented foods,
microbiota, and mental health: ancient practice meets
nutritional psychiatry. J Physiol Anthropol. 33: 2.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 317

Shoelson SE, Herrero L, Naaz A. 2007. Obesity, inﬂammation,
and insulin resistance. Gastroenterology. 132(6): 2169–2180.
Smillie CS, Smith MB, Friedman J, Cordero OX, David LA,
Alm EJ. 2011. Ecology drives a global network of gene
exchange connecting the human microbiome. Nature.
480(7376): 241–244.
Smits HH, Engering A, van der Kleij D, de Jong EC, Schipper
K, van Capel TM, Zaat BA, Yazdanbakhsh M, Wierenga EA,
van Kooyk Y, et al. 2005. Selective probiotic bacteria induce
IL-10-producing regulatory T cells in vitro by modulating
dendritic cell function through dendritic cell-specific
intercellular adhesion molecule 3-grabbing nonintegrin. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 115(6): 1260–1267.
Song SJ, Lauber C, Costello EK, Lozupone CA, Humphrey
G, Berg-Lyons D, Caporaso JG, Knights D, Clemente JC,
Nakielny S, et al. 2013. Cohabiting family members share
microbiota with one another and with their dogs. Elife. 2:
e00458.
Sozanska B, Blaszczyk M, Pearce N, Cullinan P. 2013. Atopy
and allergic respiratory disease in rural Poland before
and after accession to the European Union. J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 133(5): 1347–1353.
Strachan DP. 1989. Hay fever, hygiene, and household size.
Brit Med J. 299(6710): 1259–1260.
Su MS, Oh PL, Walter J, Ganzle MG. 2012. Intestinal origin
of sourdough Lactobacillus reuteri isolates as revealed by
phylogenetic, genetic, and physiological analysis. Appl
Environ Microbiol. 78(18): 6777–6780.
Sugiyama A, Vivanco JM, Jayanty SS, Manter DK. 2010.
Pyrosequencing assess- ment of soil microbial communities
in organic and conventional potato farms. Plant Dis. 94:
1329–1335.
Swain MR, Anandharaj M, Ray RC, Parveen Rani R. 2014.
Fermented fruits and vegetables of Asia: a potential source
of probiotics. Biotechnol Res Int. 2014: 250424.
Thalmann O, Shapiro B, Cui P, Schuenemann VJ, Sawyer SK,
Greenﬁeld DL, Germonpre MB, Sablin MV, Lopez-Giraldez
F, Domingo-Roura X, et al. 2013. Complete mitochondrial
genomes of ancient canids suggest a European origin of
domestic dogs. Science. 342(6160): 871–874.
Thorburn AN, Macia L, Mackay CR. 2014. Diet, Metabolites,
and “Western-Lifestyle” Inﬂammatory Diseases. Immunity.
40(6): 833–842.
Tillisch K, Labus J, Kilpatrick L, Jiang Z, Stains J, Ebrat B,
Guyonnet D, Legrain-Raspaud S, Trotin B, Naliboﬀ B, et al.
2013. Consumption of fermented milk product with probiotic
modulates brain activity. Gastroenterology. 144(7): 1394–
1401, 1401 e1391–1394.
Timm S, Svanes C, Janson C, Sigsgaard T, Johannessen A,
Gislason T, Jogi R, Omenaas E, Forsberg B, Toren K, et al.
2014. Place of upbringing in early childhood as related to
inﬂammatory bowel diseases in adulthood: a populationbased cohort study in Northern Europe. Eur J Epidemiol.
29(6): 429–437.

Tremaroli V, Backhed F. 2012. Functional interactions
between the gut microbiota and host metabolism. Nature.
489(7415): 242–249.
Troyer K. 1984. Behavioral acquisition of the hindgut
fermentation system by hatchling Iguana iguana. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology. 14(3): 189–193.
Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL,
Duncan A, Ley RE, Sogin ML, Jones WJ, Roe BA, Aﬀourtit
JP, et al. 2009. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins.
Nature. 457(7228): 480–484.
Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER,
Gordon JI. 2006. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with
increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 444(7122):
1027–1031.
Valkanova V, Ebmeier KP, Allan CL. 2013. CRP, IL-6 and
depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
longitudinal studies. J Aﬀect Disord. 150(3): 736–744.
von Hertzen L, Hanski I, Haahtela T. 2011a. Natural
immunity. Biodiversity loss and inﬂammatory diseases are
two global megatrends that might be related. EMBO Rep.
12(11): 1089–1093.
von Hertzen LC, Joensuu H, Haahtela T. 2011b. Microbial
deprivation, inﬂammation and cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev.
30(2): 211–223.
Wang FH, Qiao M, Su JQ, Chen Z, Zhou X, Zhu YG. 2014.
High throughput proﬁling of antibiotic resistance genes in
urban park soils with reclaimed water irrigation. Environ Sci
Technol. 48(16): 9079–9085.
Wells JC, Stock JT. 2011. Re-examining heritability: genetics,
life history and plasticity. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 22(10):
421–428.
West CE, Renz H, Jenmalm MC, Kozyrskyj AL, Allen KJ,
Vuillermin P, Prescott SL, in FMIG, in FMIG. 2015. The gut
microbiota and inﬂammatory noncommunicable diseases:
Associations and potentials for gut microbiota therapies. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 135(1): 3–13.
Whitlock DR, Feelisch M. 2009. Soil bacteria, nitrite, and the
skin. In: Rook GAW editors. The Hygiene Hypothesis and
Darwinian Medicine. Basel: Birkhäuser. p. 103–116.
Wikoﬀ WR, Anfora AT, Liu J, Schultz PG, Lesley SA, Peters
EC, Siuzdak G. 2009. Metabolomics analysis reveals large
eﬀects of gut microﬂora on mammalian blood metabolites.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 106(10): 3698–3703.
Wolfe ND, Dunavan CP, Diamond J. 2007. Origins of major
human infectious diseases. Nature. 447(7142): 279–283.
Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, DominguezBello MG, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Baldassano
RN, Anokhin AP, et al. 2012. Human gut microbiome viewed
across age and geography. Nature. 486(7402): 222–227.
Yoo J, Tcheurekdjian H, Lynch SV, Cabana M, Boushey HA.
2007. Microbial manipulation of immune function for
asthma prevention: inferences from clinical trials. Proc Am
Thorac Soc. 4(3): 277–282.

318 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Zeeuwen PL, Kleerebezem M, Timmerman HM, Schalkwijk J.
2013. Microbiome and skin diseases. Curr Opin Allergy Clin
Immunol. 13(5): 514–520.

Hunt, B. and Vincent, A.C.J. (2006). Scale and sustainability
of marine bioprospecting for pharmaceuticals. Ambio, 35 (2),
57–64.

Zhu YG, Johnson TA, Su JQ, Qiao M, Guo GX, Stedtfeld
RD, Hashsham SA, Tiedje JM. 2013. Diverse and abundant
antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A. 110(9): 3435–3440.

Krishnakumar, J., Fox, J., & Anitha, V. (2012). Non-timber
forest products. Economic & Political Weekly, 47(52), 133

Chapter 9
Barry, J. M. (2005). The great inﬂuenza: The story of the
deadliest pandemic in history. Penguin.
Beutler, J. A., Cragg, G. M., & Newman, D. J. (2012). The
National Cancer Institute and Natural Product-Based Drug
Discovery in Africa. In Drug Discovery in Africa (pp. 29–52).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP). 2010. Biodiversity
indicators and the 2010 Target: Experiences and lessons learnt
from the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada.
Technical Series No. 53, 196 pages. Retrieved from: http://
www.bipindicators.net/foodandmedicine
Brock, T. D., & Freeze, H. (1969). Thermus aquaticus gen. n.
and sp. n., a nonsporulating extreme thermophile. Journal
of Bacteriology, 98(1), 289–97.
Bortenschlager, S., & Oeggl, K. (Eds.). (2000). The iceman
and his natural environment: Palaeobotanical results. Springer
Vienna.
Chivian, E. and Bernstein, A. (2008). Sustaining life: How
human health depends on biodiversity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cho, I., & Blaser, M. J. (2012). The human microbiome: at
the interface of health and disease. Nature Reviews Genetics,
13(4), 260–270.
Costello, M. J., May, R. M., & Stork, N. E. (2013). Can
we name Earth’s species before they go extinct? Science,
339(6118), 413–416.
Davies, J., & Davies, D. (2010). Origins and evolution of
antibiotic resistance. Microbiology and Molecular Biology
Reviews, 74(3), 417–433.
Franco, A., Hill, J. K., Kitschke, C., Collingham, Y. C., Roy, D.
B., Fox, R. I. C. H. A. R. D., et al. (2006). Impacts of climate
warming and habitat loss on extinctions at species’ lowlatitude range boundaries. Global Change Biology, 12(8),
1545–1553.
Kandel, E. R. (2007). In search of memory: The emergence of a
new science of mind. WW Norton & Company.
Hamilton, A. (2003). Medicinal plants and conservation:
issues and approaches. International Plants Conservation
Unit, WWF-UK, 51.
Hostettmann, K., Potterat, O., & Wolfender, J. L. (1998). The
potential of higher plants as a source of new drugs. Chimia
International Journal for Chemistry, 52(1–2), 10–17.

Levy, S. B., & Marshall, B. (2004). Antibacterial resistance
worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nature medicine,
10, S122-S129.
May, R. M. (1988). How many species are there on earth?.
Science (Washington), 241(4872), 1441–1449.
McNeely, J. A. (2006). Risks to people of losing medicinal
species. Conserving medicinal species: securing a healthy
future. IUCN: Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group, Asia,
17–31.
Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Guariguata, M. R., Nasi, R., Sunderland,
T. C. H., & Putzel, L. (2011). Ecosystem services certiﬁcation:
Opportunities and constraints. CIFOR.
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G., & Worm,
B. (2011). How many species are there on Earth and in the
ocean?. PLoS biology, 9(8), e1001127.
Newman, D.J. and Cragg, G.M. (2007). Natural products as
sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. Journal of Natural
Products, 70, 461–477.
Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2012). Natural products as
sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010.
Journal of natural products, 75(3), 311–335.
Petersen, C., & Round, J. L. (2014). Deﬁning dysbiosis
and its inﬂuence on host immunity and disease. Cellular
microbiology, 16(7), 1024–1033.
Pew Health Initiatives. Tracking the Pipeline of Antibiotics
in Development. (2014). Available at http://www. health.
org/other-resource/tracking-the-pipeline-of-antibiotics-indevelopment-85899541556. Accessed 29 April 2014.
Phelps, J., Carrasco, L. R., & Webb, E. L. (2014). A Framework
for Assessing Supply-Side Wildlife Conservation. Conservation
biology, 28(1), 244–257.
Pimentel, D., Wilson, C., McCullum, C., Huang, R., Dwen, P.,
Flack, J., Tran, Q., Saltman, T. & Cliﬀ, B. (1997). Economic and
environmental beneﬁts of biodiversity. BioScience, 747–757.
Podolsky, S. H. (2006). Pneumonia before antibiotics: therapeutic
evolution and evaluation in twentieth-century America. JHU
Press.
Pounds, J. A., Bustamante, M. R., Coloma, L. A., Consuegra,
J. A., Fogden, M. P., Foster, P. N., et al. (2006). Widespread
amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global
warming. Nature, 439(7073), 161–167.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat (2010) Global
Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montréal,94 p. Available at http://
www.cdb.int/gbo3/
Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat (2014) Global
Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montréal, 94 p. Available at http://
www.cdb.int/gbo3/

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 319

Spellberg, B., Guidos, R., Gilbert, D., Bradley, J., Boucher, H.
W., Scheld, W. M., Bartlett, J.G. & Edwards, J. (2008). The
epidemic of antibiotic-resistant infections: a call to action for
the medical community from the Infectious Diseases Society
of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 46(2), 155–164.

Brodin, T., Piovano, S., Fick, J., Klaminder, J., Heynen, M., &
Jonsson, M. (2014). Ecological eﬀects of pharmaceuticals in
aquatic systems – impacts through behavioural alterations.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, 369(1656), 20130580.

Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H., & Miller, D. (2014). The economics
of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): challenges and
responses. Nature in the Balance: The Economics of
Biodiversity (Helm D, Hepburn C, eds). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 135–152.

Bruce, G. M., Pleus, R. C., & Snyder, S. A. (2010). Toxicological
relevance of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. Environmental
Science & Technology, 44(14), 5619–5626.

Urban, M. C. (2015). Accelerating extinction risk from climate
change. Science, 348(6234), 571–573.
Wilson, E. O. (2003). The encyclopedia of life. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 77–80.

Chapter 10
Backhaus, T. (2014). Medicines, shaken and stirred: a critical
review on the ecotoxicology of pharmaceutical mixtures.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 369(1656), 20130585.
Baker-Austin, C., Wright, M. S., Stepanauskas, R., &
McArthur, J. V. (2006). Co-selection of antibiotic and metal
resistance. Trends in Microbiology, 14(4), 176–182.
Bean, T. G., Boxall, A. B., Lane, J., Herborn, K. A., Pietravalle,
S., & Arnold, K. E. (2014). Behavioural and physiological
responses of birds to environmentally relevant concentrations
of an antidepressant. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1656), 20130575.
Bound JP, Voulvoulis N, 2005. Household Disposal of
Pharmaceuticals as a Pathway for Aquatic Contamination
in the United Kingdom. Environmental Health Perspectives
113(12); 1705–1711.
Boxall ABA, 2004. The environmental side effects of
medication. EMBO Reports 5:1110–1116.
Boxall ABA, Fogg LA, Blackwell PA, Kay P, Pemberton EJ,
Croxford A (2004) Veterinary medicines in the environment.
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 180:
1–91.
Boxall, A. B., Sherratt, T. N., Pudner, V., & Pope, L. J. (2007).
A screening level index for assessing the impacts of veterinary
medicines on dung ﬂies. Environmental Science & Technology,
41(7), 2630–2635.
Boxall, A., Hardy, A., Beulke, S., Boucard, T., Burgin, L.,
Falloon, P. D., ... & Williams, R. J. (2008). Impacts of climate
change on indirect human exposure to pathogens and
chemicals from agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives,
117(4), 508–514.

Campbell TA, Lapidge SJ, Long DB, (2006). Using Baits to
Deliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral Swine in Southern Texas.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):1184–1189.
Cardoso O, Porcher JM, Sanchez W, (2014). Factorydischarged pharmaceuticals could be a relevant source of
aquatic environment contamination: Review of evidence and
need for knowledge. Chemosphere 115; 20–30
Carroll, D., Wang, J., Fanning, S., & McMahon, B. J. (2015).
Antimicrobial Resistance in Wildlife: Implications for Public
Health. Zoonoses and Public Health. (online ahead of print; doi:
10.1111/zph.12182)
COHAB Initiative Secretariat, (2014). Ecosystem Approaches
to Health 2: The impacts of health care systems on biodiversity.
Policy Brief for CBD COP 12, Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea,
October 2014
Cortez, F.S., Pereira, C.D.S., Santos, A.R., Cesar, A., Choueri,
R.B., Martini, G.d.A. and Bohrer-Morel, M.B. (2012).
Biological eﬀects of environmentally relevant concentrations
of the pharmaceutical Triclosan in the marine mussel Perna
perna. Environmental Pollution, 168, 145–150.
Coyne R, Hiney M, O’Conner B, Cazabon D, Smith P, (1994).
Concentration and persistence of oxytetracycline in sediments
under a marine salmon farm. Aquaculture 123;31–42.
Cuthbert RJ, Dave R, Sunder Chakraborty S, Kumar S, Prakash
S, Ranade SP, Prakash V, (2011). Assessing the ongoing threat
from veterinary non-steroidal anti-inﬂammatory drugs to
Critically Endangered Gyps vultures in India. Oryx 45;
420–426.
Daughton CG. (2003b). Cradle-to-cradle stewardship of
drugs for minimizing their environmental disposition while
promoting human health. II. Drug disposal, waste reduction,
and future directions. Environmental Health Perspectives
111:775–785.
Daughton, C. G. (2014). Eco-directed sustainable prescribing:
feasibility for reducing water contamination by drugs. The
Science of the Total Environment, 493, 392–404.
Daughton CG, Ternes TA., (1999). Pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle
change? Environmental Health Perspectives 107(Suppl 6):
907–937.

Boxall ABA, Rudd MA, Brooks BW, Caldwell DJ, Choi K,
Hickmann S et al, (2012). Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care
Products in the Environment: What are the big questions?
Environmental Health Perspectives 120(9);1221–1229.

Fick J., Söderström H., Lindberg RH., Phan C., Tysklind M.
and Larsson, D. G. J., (2009). Contamination of surface,
ground, and drinking water from pharmaceutical production.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28: 2522–2527.

Breton, R. and Boxall, A. (2003), Pharmaceuticals and
Personal Care Products in the Environment: Regulatory
Drivers and Research Needs. QSAR & Combinatorial Science,
22: 399–409.

Finley, R. L., Collignon, P., Larsson, D. J., McEwen, S. A., Li, X.
Z., Gaze, W. H., ... & Topp, E. (2013). The scourge of antibiotic
resistance: the important role of the environment. Clinical
Infectious Diseases, 57; 704–710.

320 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Floate KD, Wardhaugh KG, Boxall ABA, Sherratt TN, (2005).
Faecal residues of veterinary parasiticides: non-target eﬀects
in the pasture environment. Annual Reviews of Entomology
50: 153–179.
Guler Y, Ford AT, 2010. Aquatic Toxicology. Antidepressants
make amphipods see the light. Aquatic Toxicology 99(3);
397–404.
Halling-Sørensen B., Nielsen SN, Lanzky,PF, Ingerslev, F.,
Holten Lützhøft HC, Jørgensen SE, 1998. Occurrence, fate
and eﬀects of pharmaceutical substances in the environmentA review. Chemosphere 36(2); 357–393.
Hegglin DA, Bontadina F, Gloor S, Romer J, Müller U,
Breitenmoser U, Deplazes P, 2004. Baiting red foxes in
an urban area: a camera trap study. Journal of Wildlife
Management 68(4):1010–1017.
Jones, K. E., Patel, N. G., Levy, M. A., Storeygard, A., Balk,
D., Gittleman, J. L., & Daszak, P. (2008). Global trends in
emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451(7181), 990–993.
Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD,
Barber LB, et al., 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other
organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999–
2000: a national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and
Technology 36:1202–1211.
Kampa, E., Dworak, T., Laaser, C., & Vidaurre, R. (2010).
European Regulations. In: Kümmerer and Hempel (eds) Green
and Sustainable Pharmacy (pp. 253–277). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 313pp
Kay P, Blackwell PA, Boxall ABA, (2004). Fate of veterinary
antibiotics in a macroporous tile drained clay soil.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23: 1136–1144.
Kim, J., Park, J., Kim, P. G., Lee, C., Choi, K., & Choi, K. (2010).
Implication of global environmental changes on chemical
toxicity-eﬀect of water temperature, pH, and ultraviolet B
irradiation on acute toxicity of several pharmaceuticals in
Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicology, 19(4), 662–669.
Kookana, R. S., Williams, M., Boxall, A. B., Larsson, D. J.,
Gaw, S., Choi, K., ... & Carriquiriborde, P. (2014). Potential
ecological footprints of active pharmaceutical ingredients: an
examination of risk factors in low-, middle-and high-income
countries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 369(1656), 20130586.
Kümmerer, K. (2009). The presence of pharmaceuticals in
the environment due to human use–present knowledge and
future challenges. Journal of Environmental Management,
90(8), 2354–2366.
Küster, A., & Adler, N. (2014). Pharmaceuticals in the
environment: scientiﬁc evidence of risks and its regulation.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 369(1656), 20130587.
Kyselková, M., Kotrbová, L., Bhumibhamon, G., Chroňáková,
A., Jirout, J., Vrchotová, N., ... & Elhottová, D. (2015).
Tetracycline resistance genes persist in soil amended with
cattle feces independently from chlortetracycline selection
pressure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 81, 259–265.

Lange R., Hutchinson TH, Croudace CP, Siegmund F,
Schweinfurth H, Hampe P, Panter GH, Sumpter JP, (2001).
Eﬀects of the synthetic oestrogen 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol
over the life-cycle of the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. (20/6);
1216–1227.
Larsson DJ, de Pedro C, Paxeus N., (2007). Eﬄuent from
drug manufactures contains extremely high levels of
pharmaceuticals. Journal of Hazardous Materials 148(3):751–5.
Larsson DJ, (2010). Release of active pharmaceutical
ingredients from manufacturing sites  – need for new
management strategies. Integrated Environmental Assessment
and Management, 6: 184–186.
Lumaret, J. P., Errouissi, F., Floate, K., Römbke, J., &
Wardhaugh, K. (2012). A review on the toxicity and nontarget eﬀects of macrocyclic lactones in terrestrial and aquatic
environments. Current pharmaceutical biotechnology, 13(6),
1004.
Margalida, A., Bogliani, G., Bowden, C. G. R., Donázar, J. A.,
Genero, F., Gilbert, M., ... & Green, R. E. (2014). One Health
approach to use of veterinary pharmaceuticals. Science,
346(6215); 1296–1298.
Markandya A, Taylor T, Longo A, Murty MN, Murty S,
Dhavala K. (2008). Counting the cost of vulture decline – an
appraisal of the human health and other beneﬁts of vultures
in India. Ecological Economics 67:194–204.
Monteiro SC, Boxall ABA, (2009). Factors aﬀecting the
degradation of pharmaceuticals in agricultural soils.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28:2546–2554.
Morgon, P. A. (2015) Sustainable Development for the
Healthcare Industry. Springer, Berlin. 154 pp
Musson SE, Townsend TG, (2009). Pharmaceutical compound
content of municipal solid waste. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 162(2–3); 730–735.
Naidoo, V., Wolter, K., Cuthbert, R., & Duncan, N. (2009).
Veterinary diclofenac threatens Africa’s endangered vulture
species. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 53(3),
205–208.
Nash JP, Kime DE, van der Ven LTM,, Wester PW, Brion
F, Maack G, Stahlschmidt-Allner P, Tyler CR, (2004).
Environmental concentrations of the pharmaceutical
ethinyloestradiol cause reproductive failure in fish.
Environmental Health Perspectives, (112); 1725–1733.
Oaks JL, Gilbert M, Virani MZ, Watson RT, Meteyer CU,
Rideout BA, et al. (2004). Diclofenac residues as the cause of
vulture population decline in Pakistan. Nature 427:630–633.
Orlando, E. F., & Guillette Jr, L. J. (2007). Sexual dimorphic
responses in wildlife exposed to endocrine disrupting
chemicals. Environmental Research, 104(1), 163–173.
Pruden, A., Arabi, M., & Storteboom, H. N. (2012). Correlation
between upstream human activities and riverine antibiotic
resistance genes. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(21),
11541–11549.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 321

Pruden, A. (2013). Balancing water sustainability and public
health goals in the face of growing concerns about antibiotic
resistance. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(1), 5–14.
Radimersky, T., Frolkova, P., Janoszowska, D., Dolejska, M.,
Svec, P., Roubalova, E., ... & Literak, I. (2010). Antibiotic
resistance in faecal bacteria (Escherichia coli, Enterococcus
spp.) in feral pigeons. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 109(5),
1687–1695.
Redshaw, C. H., Stahl-Timmins, W. M., Fleming, L. E.,
Davidson, I., & Depledge, M. H. (2013). Potential changes
in disease patterns and pharmaceutical use in response to
climate change. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,
Part B, 16(5), 285–320.
Rico A, Van den Brink PJ, (2014). Probabilistic risk assessment
of veterinary medicines applied to four major aquaculture
species produced in Asia. Science of the Total Environment.
468–469; 630–641.

Weinberger J, Klaper R, (2014). Environmental concentrations
of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ﬂuoxetine impact
speciﬁc behaviors involved in reproduction, feeding and
predator avoidance in the ﬁsh Pimephales promelas (fathead
minnow). Aquatic Toxicology 151; 77–83.
Wellington, E. M., Boxall, A. B., Cross, P., Feil, E. J., Gaze,
W. H., Hawkey, P. M., ... & Williams, A. P. (2013). The role
of the natural environment in the emergence of antibiotic
resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. The Lancet Infectious
Diseases, 13(2), 155–165.
Wickramsinghe LP, Harris S, Jones G, Vaughan Jennings N,
(2004). Abundance and Species Richness of Nocturnal Insects
on Organic and Conventional Farms: Eﬀects of Agricultural
Intensiﬁcation on Bat Foraging. Conservation Biology, 18:
1283–1292.
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2011). Pharmaceuticals
in Drinking Water. WHO, Geneva.

Santos, L. H., Araújo, A. N., Fachini, A., Pena, A.,
Delerue-Matos, C., & Montenegro, M. C. B. S. M. (2010).
Ecotoxicological aspects related to the presence of
pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 175(1–3), 45–95.

WHO (2012) The Evolving Threat of Antimicrobial Resistance –
Options for Action. WHO, Geneva, 120pp

Schroeder, K., Thompson, T., Frith, K., & Pencheon, D.
(2013) A Vision for Sustainable Healthcare. (pp 72–91).
In: Thompson, T., Frith, K., & Pencheon, D. Sustainable
Healthcare. John Wiley & Sons.

Chapter 11

Smith J. S. (2014). Health Impact of Pharmaceuticals in the
Environment and in Drinking Water: Potential for Human
and Environmental Risk. (pp. 91–102) In: Goldstein, W., (ed)
Pharmaceutical Accumulation in the Environment: Prevention,
Control, Health Eﬀects, and Economic Impact, CRC Press, Baton
Rouge. 262pp.
Stackelberg, P. E., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Zaugg, S. D.,
Henderson, A. K., & Reissman, D. B. (2004). Persistence of
pharmaceutical compounds and other organic wastewater
contaminants in a conventional drinking-water-treatment
plant. Science of the Total Environment, 329(1), 99–113.
Taylor, D. (2010). Ecopharmacostewardship – a
pharmaceutical industry perspective. In: Kümmerer and
Hempel (eds) Green and Sustainable Pharmacy (pp. 105–126).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 313pp
Taylor, N. G., Verner-Jeﬀreys, D. W., & Baker-Austin, C.
(2011). Aquatic systems: maintaining, mixing and mobilising
antimicrobial resistance?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(6),
278–284.
Vatovec, C., Senier, L., & Bell, M. (2013). An ecological
perspective on medical care: environmental, occupational, and
public health impacts of medical supply and pharmaceutical
chains. EcoHealth, 10(3), 257–267.
Vickery JA, Tallowin JR, Feber RE., Asteraki EJ, Atkinson PW,
Fuller RJ, Brown VK, (2001). The management of lowland
neutral grasslands in Britain: eﬀects of agricultural practices
on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology,
38: 647–664.

WHO (2014). Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on
Surveillance. WHO, Geneva. 256pp

Alves, R. R., & Alves, H. N. (2011). The faunal drugstore:
Animal-based remedies used in traditional medicines in Latin
America. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 7(9):
1–43.
Alves, R.R.N. and Rosa, I.M.L. (2007). Biodiversity, traditional
medicine and public health: Where do they meet? Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3: 14–22.
Alves, R.R.N. and Rosa, I.M.L. (2005). Why study the use
of animal products in traditional medicines? Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 1, 5–9.
Anonymous, (2008). A renaissance in primary health care. The
Lancet, 372: 9642. Available online at: http://www.thelancet.
com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140–6736(08)61369–0/
fulltext#
Balabanova, D., Mills, A., Conteh, L., Akkazieva, B.,
Banteyerga, H., Dash, U,Gilson, L., Hammer, A., Ibraimova,
A., Islam, Z., Kidanu, A., Koehlmoos, T P., Limwattananon,
S., Muraleedharan, VR. Murzalieva G., Palafox B.,
Panichkriangkrai, W., Patcharanrumol, W., Penn-Kekana
L., Powell-Jackson, T. Tangcharoensathien, V and McKee,
M (2013). Good health at low cost 25 years on: lessons
for the future of health systems strengthening. The Lancet,
381(9883), 2118–2133.
Balick, M. J., & Cox, P. A. (1996). Plants, people, and culture:
the science of ethnobotany. Scientiﬁc American Library.
Battiste, M. 2010. Indigenous knowledge and indigenous
peoples’ education. In: S.M. Subramanian and B.
Pisupati, (Eds.) (2010). Traditional Knowledge in Policy and
Practice:Approaches to Development and Human Well-being.
Tokyo: UNU Press, pp.31–51.

322 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Bertrand Graz, Healing and prevention: How can we
study eﬀectiveness and safety of traditional medicines,
and their public health importance. An Online course on
“The Retrospective Treatment Outcome Study (RTO) for
Traditional Medicines”, available at http://globalhealthtrials.
tghn.org/elearning/the-retrospective-treatment-outcomestudy/ (accessed on 04 August 2014)
Bode, Maarten, and G. Hariramamurthi. “Integrating folk
healers in India’s public health: acceptance, legitimacy and
emancipation.” eJIM-eJournal of Indian Medicine 7.1 (2015):
1–20.
Bodeker, G., Ong, C.K., Grundy, C., Burford, G., Shein, K.
(2005) WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary
and Alternative Medicine, World Health Organization, Kobe.
Bodeker G & Burford G. (2007). Traditional, Comlementary
and Alternative Medicine: Policy and Public Health
Perspectives. Imperial College Press, London.
Bodeker, G., Neumann, C., (2012). Revitalization and
Development of Karen Traditional Medicine for Sustainable
Refugee Health Services at the Thai–Burma Border. Journal
of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 10:6–30.
Bodeker, G. Van ‘t Klooster, C. and E. Weisbord. (2014). Prunus
africana (Hook.f.) Kalkman: The Overexploitation of a
Medicinal Plant Species and Its Legal Context. The Journal
of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (in press). 
Bodeker, G., Weisbord E, Diallo, D., Byamukama, R., Sekagya,
Y. van ‘t Klooster, C.I.E.A., (2015). ‘African medicinal plants
and traditional medical knowledge: Access & Beneﬁt Sharing
in the context of R&D’, in: Charles Wambebe & Philippe
Raﬁta Rasoanaivo (Eds.), African Indigenous Medical Knowledge
and Human Health (in press).
Brewer, J. K. (2014). Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual
Property: Drug Research and Development in Contemporary
Context. Intel Prop Rights, 2(120), 2.
Bussmann, R.W. (2013). The globalization of traditional
medicine in northern Peru – from shamanism to molecules.
Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Article
ID 291903, 46 pages, doi:10.1155/2013/291903.
Chivian, E. and Bernstein, A. (Eds.), (2008). Sustaining Life:
How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cunningham, G., (2005). The Jambi Kiwa Story – Mobilizing
Assets for Community Development. Antigonish: The Coady
International Institute. Available at: http://
coady.stfx.ca/tinroom/assets/ﬁle/JAMBIenglishﬁn1.pdf .
Accessed 04 August 2014.
Diallo, D., Diakite, C., Mounkoro, P.P., Sangare, D., Graz, B.,
Falquet, J. and Giani, S., (2007). [Knowledge of traditional
healers on malaria in Kendi (Bandiagara) and Finkolo (Sikasso)
in Mali ]. Mali Medical 22, 1–8.Fabricant D.S., Farnsworth,
N.R., (2001) The value of plants used in traditional medicine
for drug discovery. Environ Health Perspect 109 (Suppl 1):
69–75.

Etkin, N. L. (2001). Perspectives in ethnopharmacology:
forging a closer link between bioscience and traditional
empirical knowledge. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 76(2),
177–182.
FairWild Foundation, (2010). FairWild Standard: Version 2.0.
FairWild Foundation, Weinfelden, Switzerland. Retrieved
from http://www.fairwild.org/documents/
Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., King, M., & Furgal, C. (2010).
Vulnerability of Aboriginal health systems in Canada to
climate change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4),
668–680.
Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions
(FRLHT), (1999). The Key Role of Forestry Sector in
Conserving India’s Medicinal Plants: Conceptual and
Operational Features. Bangalore: FRLHT.
Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions
(FRLHT), 2009.Overview. Available at: <http://envis.frlht.
org/overview.htm> [Accessed 4 August 2014].
Gadgil. M., Seshagiri Rao, P.R., Utkarsh, G., Pramod, P. and
Chhatre, A. 2000, New meanings for old knowledge: The
people’s biodiversity register program. Ecological Applications,
10(5), pp.1307–1317.
Hamilton, A. C. (2004). Medicinal plants, conservation and
livelihoods. Biodiversity & Conservation, 13(8), 1477–1517.
Hamilton, A. C, Hamilton, P. (2006) Plant Conservation: An
Ecosystem Approach, Earthscan.
Hariramamurthi, G., Venkatasubramanian, P. Unnikrishnan,
P. M. and Shankar, D. (2006). Home Herbal Gardens  – A
Novel Health Security Strategy Based on Local Knowledge
and Resources in ‘Traditional, Complementary & Alternative
Medicine: Policy & Public Health Perspectives’, G Bodeker&
G Burford, Imperial College Press, London.
Haverkort, B., Van’tHooft, K. and Hiemstra, W. (Eds.), (2003).
Ancient Roots New Shoots. Leusden: ETC/COMPAS and Zed
Books.
Hawkins, B. (2008) Plants for life: Medicinal plant
conservation and botanic gardens Botanic Gardens
Conservation International (BGCI)
Jenkins, T.N., (2000). Putting Post modernity into Practice:
Endogenous Development and the Role of Traditional
Cultures in the Rural Development of Marginal Regions.
Ecological Economics, 34, pp.301–314.
Kathe, W., Pätzold, B., Leaman, D.,Timoshyna, A., Newton,
D., Khou, E., Kinhal, G.,Sapkota I.B., Pasha, M.K.S., Ndam,
N.,Melisch, R.,Bundalo, S., Honnef, S., Osborn, T.,Buitrón,
X., and Liu,X, (2010), Wild for a Cure ground-truthing a
Standard for Sustainable Management of wild plants in the
Field: TRAFFIC International.
Kim, J, Y., Farmer, P., and Porter, M.E., (2013), Redeﬁning
global health-care delivery, The Lancet 382 (9897),
1060–1069..

Etkin, N. L. (1988). Ethnopharmocology: biobehavioral
approaches in the anthropological study of indigenous
medicines. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23–42.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 323

Kitalong, C , Tadao, V.R., Hillmann, A., Balick, M., Kennelly,
E., (2012) Phytochemical analysis of Palauan traditional
medicinal plant Phaleria nisidai to determine therapeutic
dosing of Mangiferin, A C-glucosylxanthone.Planta Medica.
78(11): PF1.
Milliken, T. and Shaw, J. 2012. The South Africa – Viet
Nam Rhino Horn Trade Nexus: A deadly combination of
institutional lapses, corrupt wildlife industry professionals
and Asian crime syndicates. TRAFFIC, Johannesburg, South
Africa.
Miththapala, S. (Ed.), (2006). Conserving Medicinal Species:
Securing a Healthy Future, Colombo: IUCN Ecosystems and
Livelihoods Group, Asia.
Montenegro, R. A., & Stephens, C. (2006). Indigenous health
in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Lancet, 367(9525),
1859–1869.
Multi-disciplinary University Traditional Health Initiative.
(MUTHI). About the Project. (2013). Retrieved at: www.
mn.uio.no/farmasi/english/research/projects/muthi.
Accessed 13 March 2014.
Newman, D. and Cragg, G., (2007). Natural Products as
Sources of New Drugs over theLast 25 years. Journal of
Natural Products, 70(3): 461–477.
Ningthoujam, S. S., Talukdar, A. D., Potsangbam, K. S., &
Choudhury, M. D. (2012). Challenges in developing medicinal
plant databases for sharing ethnopharmacological knowledge.
Journal of ethnopharmacology, 141(1), 9–32.
Nunkoo, D. H., & Mahomoodally, M. F. (2012).
Ethnopharmacological survey of native remedies commonly
used against infectious diseases in the tropical island of
Mauritius. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 143(2), 548–564.
Payyappalli, U. 2010 Knowledge and Practitioners – Is There
a Promotional Bias in Traditional Knowledge in Policy and
Practice: Approaches to Development and Wellbeing Suneetha
Subramanian and Pisupati, B., (eds.), Tokyo: UNU Press.
Payyappallimana, U. 2010 Role of Traditional Medicine
in Primary Health Care: An Overview of Perspectives and
Challenges, Yokohama Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 14 No.
6, 57–77
Petersen, L. M., Charman, A. J., Moll, E. J., Collins, R. J., &
Hockings, M. T. (2014a). “Bush Doctors and Wild Medicine”:
The Scale of Trade in Cape Town’s Informal Economy of
Wild-Harvested Medicine and Traditional Healing. Society
& Natural Resources, 27(3): 315–336.
Petersen, L. M., Moll, E. J., Hockings, M. T., & Collins, R. J.
(2014b). Implementing value chain analysis to investigate
drivers and sustainability of Cape Town’s informal economy
of wild-harvested traditional medicine. Local Environment:
27(3) 1–22.
Posey, D (Ed), (2000). Cultural and Spiritual Values of
Biodiversity. UNEP, Nairobi.
Rai, J.S., Thorheim, C., Dorjderem, A. and Macer, D., (2010).
Universalism and Ethical Values for the Environment – Ethics and
Climate Change in the Asia Paciﬁc (ECCAP) Working Group 1
Report. Bangkok: UNESCO.

Reading, C. L., & Wien, F. (2009). Health inequalities and
the social determinants of Aboriginal peoples’ health. Prince
George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal
Health.
Reid, A. M. (2014). Rastas on the road to healing:
plant-human mobilities in Cape Town, South Africa.
University of Cape Town, Cape Town. Available at:
https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11427/6795/
thesis_hum_2014_reid_am.pdf
Reyes-García, V. (2010). The relevance of traditional
knowledge systems for ethnopharmacological research:
theoretical and methodological contributions. Journal of
ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 6(1), 32.
Roe, D. ed., (2010). Linking Biodiversity Conservation and
Poverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge Review. CBD Technical
Series no. 55. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. H., Savolainen, V., Williamson, E. M.,
Forest, F., Wagstaﬀ, S. J., Baral, S. R., Watson, M F., C A., &
Hawkins, J. A. (2012). Phylogenies reveal predictive power
of traditional medicine in bioprospecting. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 109(39), 15835–15840.
Schippmann, U., Leamann, D. & Cunningham, A.B., (2006),
A comparison of cultivation and wild collection of medicinal
and aromatic plants under sustainability aspects.  – In:
Bogers, R.J., Craker, L.E. &Lange, D (Ed): Medicinal and
aromatic plants. Agricultural, commercial, ecological, legal,
pharmacological and social aspects. pp. 75–95, Springer,
Dordrecht (Wageningen UR Frontis Series 17).  Retrieved
from  http://library.wur.nl/frontis/medicinal_aromatic_
plants/06_schippmann.pdf, (Accessed 04 August 2014).
Shankar, D., (1992) Indigenous Health Services the state of
the Art. State of India’s health. New Delhi: Voluntary Health
Association of India.
Shankar, D., P.M. Unnikrishnan and Padma
Venkatasubramanian, (2007). Need to Develop Inter-Cultural
Standards for Quality, Safety and Eﬃcacy of Traditional
Indian Systems of Medicine. Current Science, 92 (11).
Stephens, C., Porter, J., Nettleton, C., & Willis, R. (2006).
Disappearing, displaced, and undervalued: a call to action
for Indigenous health worldwide. The lancet, 367(9527),
2019–2028.
Timmermans, K. (2003). Intellectual property rights and
traditional medicine: policy dilemmas at the interface. Social
Science & Medicine, 57(4), 745–756.
UN COMTRADE, (2013). Data analysed from http://
comtrade.un.org/
UN 2010 A65/314, (2010). Report of the Secretary General
of the United Nations, Harmony with Nature.
United Nations (1993) Agenda 21: Earth Summit – The
United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, UN
Publications, USA.
Unnikrishnan, P.M., Suneetha M.S., (2012), Biodiversity,
Traditional Knowledge and Community Health-Strengthening
Linkages, UNU-IAS, Yokohama.

324 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Unnikrishnan, P.M., Prakash, B.N. (2007) Traditional Herbal
Medicines for Malaria Prevention, Endogenous Development
Magazine, Leusden: Compas, No.1.
UNU-IAS (2012) Biodiversity and Community Health:
connecting and linking nature, knowledge and practices on
the ground, Tokyo: UNU-IAS.
Vandebroek, I. (2013). Intercultural health and ethnobotany:
How to improve healthcare for underserved and minority
communities?. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 148(3),
746–754.
Vandebroek, I., & Balick, M. J. (2012). Globalization and loss
of plant knowledge: challenging the paradigm. PloS one, 7(5),
e37643.
Van Damme, W., Meessen, B., Por, I. and Kober, K., (2003).
Catastrophic health expenditure, The Lancet, 362 (9388): 996.
Waage, J., Banerji, R., Campbell, O., Chirwa, E., Collender,
G., Dieltiens, V., Dorward, A., Godfrey-Faussett, P.,
Hanvoravongchai, P., Kingdon, G., Little, A., Mills, A.,
Mulholland, K., Mwinga, A., North, A., Patcharanarumol,
W., Poulton, C., Tangcharoensathien, V., Unterhalter, E.,
(2010) The Millennium Development Goals: A cross-sectoral
analysis and principles for goal setting after 2015. Lancet
and London International Development Centre Commission,
http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/
S0140673610611968.pdf Accessed 18 August 2014.
Willcox, M. L., & Bodeker, G. (2004). Traditional herbal
medicines for malaria. British Medical Journal, 329(7475),
1156–1159.
Willcox ML, G.B., Falquet J, Diakite C, Giani S, Diallo D.,
(2011). A “reverse pharmacology” approach for developing an
anti-malarial phytomedicine. Malaria Journal, 10(Suppl 1), S8.
World Health Organization (WHO). (1998). The World Health
Report 1998: Life in the 21st century a vision for all. In The
world health report 1998: life in the 21st century A vision for all;
World Health Organization.
WHO, (2000). General Guidelines for Methodologies
onresearch and evaluation of traditional medicine. World
Health Organisation, Geneva.
WHO (2002). WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002–
2005. World Health Organisation, Geneva.
WHO (2005) National policy on traditional medicine and
regulation of herbal medicines: Report of a WHO global
survey. World Health Organisation, Geneva.
WHO, (2008). The Bamako Call to Action for Research on
Health. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/rpc/news/
BAMAKO CALL TO ACTION FinalNov24.pdf?ua=1. Accessed
13 March 2014.
WHO, (2013). WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014–
2023, Geneva.

Albrecht, G., Sartore, G. M., Connor, L., Higginbotham, N.,
Freeman, S., Kelly, B, Stain, H., Tonna A. & Pollard, G. (2007).
Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change.
Australasian Psychiatry, 15(S1), S95-S98.
Alexandra Health (2010). Unveiling a New Chapter: Annual
Report 09/10 [Online]. Singapore: Alexandra Health.
Accessed from: http://www.ktph.com.sg/uploads/report/
documents/8373_AR%202009–2010.pdf [Accessed 21 May
2015].
Annerstedt, M., Ostergren, P.,O., Bjork, J., Grahn, P., Skarback,
E., Wahrborg, P. (2012) Green qualities in the neighbourhood
and mental health – Results from a longitudinal cohort study
in Southern Sweden. BMC Public Health 12: 337.
Aspinall, P. A., Mavros, P., Coyne, R., Roe, J. J., (2013) Urban
Brain: Analyzing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG,
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 06.03.2013, p. 1–7.
Astell-Burt, T., X. Feng, S. Mavoa, H. M. Badland, and B.
Giles-Corti. 2014. Do low-income neighbourhoods have the
least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most
populous cities. BMC Public Health 14:292.
Axelsen, J.B., Manrubia, S.. (2014). River density and
landscape roughness are universal determinants of linguistic
diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B: 281
Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred Ecology. Traditional ecological
knowledge and resource management. Taylor & Francis.
Philadelphia, 2nd Edition
Barton, J., Pretty, J. (2010) What is the best dose of nature
and green exercise for improving mental health? A multistudy analysis. Environ Sci Technol 44:3947–3955.
Bauman, A.E., (2004) Updating the evidence that physical
activity is good for health: an epidemiological review 2000–
2003. J Sci Med Sport 7:6–19.
Beaglehole, R., Bonita, R., Horton, R., Adams, C., Alleyne,
G., Asaria, P., Baugh, V., Bekedam, H., Billo, N., Casswell, S.,
Cecchini, M., Colagiuri, R., Colagiuri, S., Collins, T., Ebrahim,
S. M. G Engelga, Galea, T., Gaziano ,T,. Geneau, R., Haines,
A., Hospedales, J., Jha, P., Keeling, A., Leeder, S., Lincoln,
P., McKee, M., Mackay, J., Magnusson, R., Moodie, M.,
Mwatsama, J., Nishtar, J.,Norrving, B., Patterson, D., Piot,
P., Ralston, J., Rani, M., Reddy, K.S., Sassi, F., Sheron, N.,
Stuckler, D., Suh, I., Torode, J., Varghese, C., Watt, J. (2011)
Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. The
Lancet 377: 1438–1447.
Beaglehole, R., & Bonita, R. (2008). Global public health: a
scorecard. The Lancet, 372(9654), 1988–1996.
Bell, J.D., Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., Nash, W.J., Keeble, G.,
Demmke, A., Pontifex, S., Andrefouet, S. (2009) Planning
the use of ﬁsh for food security in the Paciﬁc. Mar Policy 33
(1) 64 -76.

Chapter 12

Berger, B.G., Motl, R.W., (2000) Exercise and mood: a selective
review and synthesis of research employing the Proﬁle of
Mood States. J Appl Sport Psychol , 12:69–92.

Agenda 21 for Culture (2004). An undertaking by cities and
local governments for cultural development. Accessed from
http://www.bcn.cat/cultura/agenda21cultura/index_en.htm

Bixler, R. D., and Floyd, M. F. (1997). Nature is scary,
disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior,
29(4), 443–467.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 325

Björk, J., Albin, M., Grahn, P., Jacobsson, H., Ardö, J., Wadbro,
J., Östergren, P.O., Skärbäck, E. (2008) Recreational values
of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood
satisfaction, physicalactivity, obesity and wellbeing. J.
Epidemiol. Commun. Health 62: e2.
Blair, S.N., Morris J.N. (2009) Healthy hearts  – and the
universal beneﬁts of being physically active: physical activity
and health. Ann Epidemiol, 19:253–256.
Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M., Knight, T.M., Pullin,
A.S., (2010) A systematic review of evidence for
the added benefits to health of exposure to
natural environments. BMC Public Health 10, 456,
doi: 10.1186/1471–2458–10–456.
Branas C.C.,  Cheney,  R., MacDonald,  J.M., Tam,  V.M.,
Jackson, T.D. and Ten Have, T.R. (2011). A Diﬀerence-inDiﬀerences Analysis of Health, Safety, and Greening Vacant
Urban Space. Am. J. Epidemiol. 174:1296–1306.
Bringslimark T, Hartig T, Patil GG (2007) Psychological
beneﬁts of indoor plants in workplaces: Putting experimental
results into context. HortScience 42, 581–587.
Brown WJ, Burton NW, Rowan PJ (2007) Updating the
evidence on physical activity and health in women. Am J Prev
Med 33:404–411.
Byrne, J., J. Wolch, and J. Zhang. (2009). Planning for
environmental justice in an urban national park. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 52:365–392.
Cairns-Nagi, J. M., and C. Bambra. (2013). Defying the odds:
A mixed-methods study of health resilience in deprived areas
of England. Social Science & Medicine 91:229–237.
Carter M, Horwitz P (2014) Beyond Proximity: The
Importance of Green Space Useability to Self-Reported
Health. EcoHealth. DOI: 10.1007/s10393–014–0952–9
Champion, P.D., Burns, N.M. (2001). Lake Omapere: Current
understanding of ecological condition with short- and longterm management options. National Institute of Water
and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Consultancy Report
MFE01231. Hamilton, NIWA.
Charron, D. F. (2012). Ecohealth Research in Practice: Innovative
Applications of an Ecosystem Approach to Health. Springer, New
York, NY, USA / International Development Research Centre,
Ottawa, Canada.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into eﬀective environmental
action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15–26.
Clark, N. E., R. Lovell, B. W. Wheeler, S. L. Higgins, M. H.
Depledge, and K. Norris. (2014). Biodiversity, cultural
pathways, and human health: a framework. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution.
Coen, S.E., & Ross, N.A. (2006). Exploring the material
basis for health: Characteristics of parks in Montreal
neighbourhoods with contrasting health outcomes. Health
& Place, 12(4), 361–371.
Cohen, M., R. Baudoin, M. Palibrk, N. Persyn, and C. Rhein.
(2012). Urban biodiversity and social inequalities in built-up
cities: New evidences, next questions. The example of Paris,
France. Landscape and Urban Planning 106:277–287.

Cohen, B. (2006). Urbanization in developing countries:
Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for
sustainability. Technology in society, 28(1), 63–80.
Collins ,P.Y., Patel, V. Joestl S.S., March, D., Insel, T.R., Daar,
A.S., Bordin, I.A., Costello, E.J., Durkin, M., Fairburn, C.,
Glass, R.I., Hall, W., Huang, Y., Hyman, S.E., Jamison, K.,
Kaaya, S., Kapur, S., Kleinman, A., Ogunniyi, A., OteroOjeda, A., Poo, M.M., Ravindranath, V., Sahakian, B.J.,
Saxena, S., Singer, P.A., Stein, D.J., Anderson, W., Dhansay,
M.A., Ewart, W., Phillips, A., Shurin, S., Walport, M. (2011)
Grand challenges in global mental health. Nature 475: 27–30.
Crawford, D., Timperio, A., Giles-Corti, B., Ball, K., Hume,
C., Roberts, R., Salmon, J. (2008). Do features of public open
spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic
status? Health & Place, 14(4), 889–893. doi: doi:10.1016/j.
healthplace.2007.11.002
Cummins, S., Staﬀord, M., Macintyre, S., Marmot, M.,
Ellaway, A., (2005). Neighbourhood environment and its
association with self-rated health: Evidence from Scotland
and England. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 59: 207–213.
Cutts, B. B., Darby, K. J., Boone, C. G. and Brewis, A., (2009).
City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: an
integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable
streets and park access. Soc. Sci. Med. 69 1314–22.
Dadvand, P., de Nazelle, A., Figueras, F., Basagaña, X.,
Su, J., Amoly, E., Jerrett, M., Vrijheid, M., Sunyer, J. and
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2012). Green space, health inequality
and pregnancy. Environment international, 40, 110–115.
Dallimer, M., Irvine, K., Skinner, A., Davies, Z., Rouquette,
J., Maltby, L., Warren, P., Armsworth, P., Gaston, K. (2012)
Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding
associations between self- reported human well-being and
species richness. BioScience 62: 47–55.
Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., and Pomeroy, R. (2011).
Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty
alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being.
Environmental Conservation 38:370–379.
de Jong K., Albin, M., Skärbäck, E., Grahn, P., Björk, J. (2012)
Perceived green qualities were associated with neighborhood
satisfaction, physical activity, and general health: Results
from a cross-sectional study in sub-urban and rural Scania,
southern Sweden. Health Place 18: 1374–1380.
Derr, V., & Lance, K. (2012). Biophilic Boulder: Children’s
Environments That Foster Connections to Nature. Children
Youth and Environments, 22(2), 112–143.
de Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P. and
Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural environments – healthy
environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship
between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A
35:1717–1731.
Diaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity
loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol. 4: e277.
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson,
J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of
environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 474–
493. doi:10.1177/0013916506298794

326 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Ellett, L., Freeman, D., Garety, P.A.(2008) The psychological
eﬀect of an urban environment on individuals with persecutory
delusions: The Camberwell walk study, Schizophrenia Research
99: 77–84
Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem
services: A framework for studying environmental justice and
ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and
Urban Planning 109:7–17.
Fjeld, T., Veiersted, B., Sandvik, L., Riise, G., Levy, F. (1998).
The eﬀect of indoor foliage plants on health and discomfort
symptoms among oﬃce workers. Indoor Built Environ. 2,
204–209.
Francis, J., Wood, L. J., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B. (2012).
Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between
Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth,
Western Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 74 1570–1577.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.032
Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine- Wright, P., Warren, P.H.,
Gaston, K.J. (2007) Psychological beneﬁts of green space
increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 3: 390–394.
Gavin MC, Sibanda N. (2012). The island biogeography of
languages. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 958–967.

Hamer, M., & Chida, Y. (2008). Active commuting and
cardiovascular risk: a meta-analytic review. Preventive
medicine, 46(1), 9–13.
Han K (2009) Inﬂuence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants
on the psychology, behaviour, and health of students at a
junior high school in Taiwan. Environ. Behav. 41, 658–692.
Hankey, S., Lindsey, G., Wang, X., Borah, J., Hoﬀ, K., Utecht,
B., & Xu, Z. (2012). Estimating use of non-motorized
infrastructure: Models of bicycle and pedestrian traﬃc in
Minneapolis, MN. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3),
307–316. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.005.
Hansmann, R,, Hug, S., Seeland, K. (2007). Restoration and
stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks.
Urban Forestry Urban Greening 6, 213–225.
Henwood, R., & Henwood, W. (2011). Mana whenua
kaitiakitanga in action: Restoring the mauri of Lake Ōmāpere.
AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 7(3).
Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., Fagan, W. F., Redman, C. L.,
Grimm, N. B., Nelson, A.l., Martin, C. & Kinzig, A. (2003).
Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the
national academy of sciences, 100(15), 8788–8792.

Garvin, E.C., Cannuscio, C.C., and Branas, C.C. (2013).
Greening vacant lots to reduce violent crime: a randomised
controlled trial. Injury Prevention 19(3): 198–203.

Horwitz, P. and Finlayson, C.M. (2011). Wetlands as settings:
using ecosystem services and health impact assessment for
wetland and water resource management. BioScience 61:
678–688

Gee, K., and Burkhard, B., (2010). Cultural ecosystem services
in the context of oﬀshore wind farming: a case study from
the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological Complexity
7:349–358.

Hou, L., Ji, B. T., Blair, A., Dai, Q., Gao, Y. T., & Chow, W. H.
(2004). Commuting physical activity and risk of colon cancer
in Shanghai, China. American journal of epidemiology, 160(9),
860–867.

Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins,
C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., Lange, A. & Donovan, R. J.
(2005). Increasing walking: how important is distance to,
attractiveness, and size of public open space?. American
journal of preventive medicine, 28(2), 169–176.

Huynen, M. M. T. E., Martens, P., & De Groot, R. S. (2004).
Linkages between biodiversity loss and human health: a global
indicator analysis. International Journal of Environmental
Health Research, 14(1), 13–30.

Godbey, G. (2009). Outdoor recreation, health, and wellness:
Understanding and enhancing the relationship. RFF
Discussion Paper No. 09–21, May 6, 2009.
Goličnik, B., & Thompson, C. W. (2010). Emerging
relationships between design and use of urban park spaces.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1), 38–53.doi: 10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2009.07.016
Gorenﬂo, L. J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R. A., & WalkerPainemilla, K. (2012). Co-occurrence of linguistic and
biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high
biodiversity wilderness areas. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8032–8037.
Gray, T. (2012). Review of the Lake Ōmāpere Restoration and
Management Project. Report prepared for Northland Regional
Council. TEC Services. 87 p. Accessed from: http://www.nrc.
govt.nz/
Grabow, M. L., Spak, S. N., Holloway, T., Stone Jr, B.,
Mednick, A. C., & Patz, J. A. (2012) Air quality and exerciserelated health benefits from reduced car travel in the
midwestern United States. Env Health Perspect. 120(1):68–
76. doi:10.1289/ehp.1103440. 

Jarrett, J., Woodcock, J., Griﬃths, U. K., Chalabi, Z., Edwards,
P., Roberts, I., & Haines, A. (2012). Eﬀect of increasing active
travel in urban England and Wales on costs to the National
Health Service. The Lancet, 379(9832), 2198–2205.
Jenkins, A.P., Jupiter, S.D. (2011) Spatial and seasonal
patterns in freshwater ichthyofaunal communities of a
tropical high island in Fiji. Environ Biol Fish 91(3):261–274.
Jenkins, A.P., Jupiter, S.D., Qauqau, I., Atherton, J. (2010) The
importance of ecosystem-based management for conserving
migratory pathways on tropical high islands: A case study
from Fiji. Aquat Conserv 20(2):224–238.
Jennings, V., Johnson Gaither, C., & Gragg, R. S. (2012).
Promoting environmental justice through urban green space
access: a synopsis. Environmental Justice, 5(1), 1–7.
Jones, A., Hillsdon, M., & Coombes, E. (2009). Greenspace
access, use, and physical activity: understanding the eﬀects of
area deprivation. Preventive medicine, 49(6), 500–505.
Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green?
Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 122, 129–139.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 327

Kahn Jr, P. H., & Kellert, S. R. (2002). Children and nature:
Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: A
psychological perspective New York, Cambridge University
Press.
Kaplan S (1995) The restorative beneﬁts of nature: toward
an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol 15:169–182.
Keller, H.A. 2001. “Etnobotánica de los guaraníes que habitan
la selva misionera”. Reunión de Comunicaciones Cientíﬁcas y
Tecnológicas 2001, UNNE, Corrientes, Argentina, Accessed
from: http://www.unne.edu.ar/cyt/2001/6-biológicas/b-008.
pdf
Keniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N., & Fuller, R. A.
(2013). What are the Beneﬁts of Interacting with Nature?.
International journal of environmental research and public health,
10(3), 913–935, doi:10.3390/ijerph10030913
Kessel, A., Green, J., Pinder, R., Wilkinson, P., Grundy, C.,
Lachowycz, K. (2009). Multidisciplinary research in public
health: A case study of research on access to green space.
Public Health, 123 32–38. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2008.08.005
Kinzig, A. P., Warren, P., Martin, C., Hope, D., & Katti, M.
(2005). The eﬀects of human socioeconomic status and
cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity.
Ecology and Society, 10(1), 23.
Kuo, F. E., & Faber Taylor, A. (2004). A potential natural
treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:
evidence from a national study. American journal of public
health, 94(9), 1580–1586.
Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Aggression and violence
in the inner city. Eﬀects of environment via mental fatigue.
Environment and Behaviour 33: 543–571.
Lachowycz K, Jones AP (2011) Green space and obesity:
A systematic review of the evidence. Obesity Rev. 12:
e183–e189.
Lee ACK, Maheswaran R (2010) The health beneﬁts of urban
green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health 33:
212–222.
Lee, J., Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Ohira, T., Kagawa, T., &
Miyazaki, Y. (2011). Eﬀect of forest bathing on physiological
and psychological responses in young Japanese male subjects.
Public Health, 125(2), 93–100.
Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya,
K., Adair-Rohani, H., .et al. (2013). A comparative risk
assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to
67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–
2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859), 2224–2260.
Little, B. R. (1983) ‘Personal projects: a rationale and method
for investigation’ in Environment and Behavior, 15: 273–309.
Logan, A. C. (2015). Dysbiotic drift: mental health,
environmental grey space, and microbiota. dementia, 8, 9.
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from
nature-deﬁcit disorder. Algonquin Books.

Lovell R, Wheeler BW, Higgins SL , Irvine KN, Depledge MH
(2014) A Systematic Review of the Health and Well-Being
Beneﬁts of Biodiverse Environments, Journal of Toxicology
and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 17:1,
1–20.
Luck GW, Davidson P, Boxall D, Smallbone L (2011) Relations
between urban bird and plant communities and human wellbeing and connection to nature. Conserv. Biol. 25: 816–826.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., De Vries, S.,
& Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and
health: how strong is the relation?. Journal of epidemiology
and community health, 60(7), 587–592.
Maﬃ, L. (2005). Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34:599–617.
Maller C, Townsend M, St Leger L, Henderson-Wilson C,
Pryor A, Prosser L, Moore M (2008). Healthy parks, healthy
people: The health beneﬁts of contact with nature in a park
context. A review of current literature (2nd ed.) Melbourne:
Deakin University and Parks Victoria.
Maizlish N, Woodcock J, Co S, Ostro B, Fanai A, Fairley D.
Health cobeneﬁts and transportation-related reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay
area. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(4):703–9. doi:10.2105/
ajph.2012.300939.
Markevych, I., Tiesler, C. M., Fuertes, E., Romanos, M.,
Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., et al. (2014). Access
to urban green spaces and behavioural problems in
children: Results from the GINIplus and LISAplus studies.
Environment international, 71, 29–35.
Martin, C. A., Warren, P. S., & Kinzig, A. P. (2004).
Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of
perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods
and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 69(4), 355–368.
Mayer, F.S. and C. Frantz. (2004). The connectedness to
nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community
with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24(4), 503–
515. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
McCurdy, L. E., Winterbottom, K. E., Mehta, S. S., & Roberts,
J. R. (2010). Using nature and outdoor activity to improve
children’s health. Current problems in pediatric and adolescent
health care, 40(5), 102–117.
McGregor, D. P., Morelli, P. T., Matsuoka, J. K., Rodenhurst,
R., Kong, N., & Spencer, M. S. (2003). An ecological model
of Native Hawaiian well-being. Paciﬁc health dialog, 10(2),
106–128.
Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013).
Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects
for future research. Ecol. Soc, 18(3), 44.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and
Human Well-being: Synthesis., Washington, DC.
Mitchell, R., Popham, F. (2007) Green space, urbanity and
health: Relationships in England. J. Epidemiol. Commun.
Health 61: 681–683.

328 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Mitchell, R., Popham, F. (2008) Eﬀect of exposure to natural
environment on health inequalities: An observational
population study. The Lancet 372: 1655–1660.
Mlambo M (2012) The urgent need for human well-being
elements in biodiversity research. Biodivers. Conserv. 21:
1149–1151.
Montenegro, R.A. 1992. “Ecodiversity or biodiversity?
Towards new concepts”. In: “Biodiversity and International
Environmental Law”, S. Bilderbeck Ed., Ed. IOS Press-IUCN,
Amsterdam, pp. 47–48.
Montenegro, R.A. 2004. “Latin American experiences in
community based assessments. Joint works with the Mbya
indigenous communities of Tekoa Yma and Tekoa Kapi’i
Yvate in the rainforest of Misiones (Argentina)”. Abstracts,
3rd. International Conference on Children’s Health and
Environment, London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, University of London, p. 31.
Montenegro, R.A. 2006. “El silencioso genocidio de los Mbya
Guarani”. Ed. FUNAM, Córdoba, Argentina, 231 p. To be
re published by Université de Franche Comté in France (in
press).
Montenegro, R.A. and Stephens, C. (2006). Indigenous
Health in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Lancet,
367:1859–1869.
Montgomery, M. R. (2008). The urban transformation of the
developing world. Science, 319(5864), 761–764.
Murray, C. J., Vos, T., Lozano, R., Naghavi, M., Flaxman, A.
D., Michaud, C. et al. (2012). Disability-adjusted life years
(DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–
2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859), 2197–2223.
Mustapa, Nor Diyana, Nor Zarifah Maliki, and Aswati
Hamzah. (2015). Repositioning Children’s Developmental
Needs in Space Planning: A Review of Connection to Nature.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 170 : 330–339.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009).
The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’
connection with nature to environmental concern and
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740.
doi:10.1177/0013916508318748
O’Brien, L., Townsend, M. & Ebden, M. (2008), ‘I like to think
when I’m gone I will have left this a better place’ – Environmental
volunteering: motivations, barriers and beneﬁts, Report to the
Scottish Forestry Trust and Forestry Commission.
O’Campo P, Salmon C, Burke J (2009) Neighbourhoods and
mental well-being: What are the pathways? Health & Place,
15(1), 56–68.
Parks Canada. (2011, April). The VALUE of Visiting National
Parks. Social Science Branch (ERVE).
Pereira G, Christian H, Foster S, Boruﬀ B J, Bull F, Knuiman M,
Giles-Corti B (2013). The association between neighborhood
greenness and weight status: an observational study in Perth
Western Australia. Environmental Health, 12, 49. doi: http://
www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/49

Pretty, J, Adams, B., Berkes, F., de Athayde, S.F., Dudley,
N., Hunn, E., Maﬃ, L., Milton, K., Rapport, D., Robbins, P.,
Samson, C., Sterling, E., Stolton, S., Takeuchi, K., Tsing, A.,
Vintinner, E. and Pilgrim, S. (2008). How Do Biodiversity and
Culture Intersect? Plenary paper for Conference “Sustaining
Cultural and Biological Diversity In a Rapidly Changing World:
Lessons for Global Policy”. Organized by American Museum of
Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation,
IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Theme on Culture and
Conservation, and Terralingua. April 2–5th 2008.
Pretty, J., Barton, J., Colbeck, I., Hine, R., Mourato, S.,
Mackerron, G. and Wood, C. (2011). Health Values from
Ecosystems. Chapter 23 in UK National Ecosystem
Assessment: Technical Report.
Pucher J, Buehler R, Bassett DR, Dannenberg AL. Walking and
Cycling to Health: A Comparative Analysis of City, State, and
International Data. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(10):1986–
1992. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.189324.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., Tengö, M., Bennett, E.
M., Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., MacDonald, G. K. and Pfeifer,
G. K. (2010). Untangling the Environmentalist’s Paradox:
Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services
Degrade? BioScience 60:576–589.
Rethorst CD, Wipfli BM, Landers DM (2009) The
antidepressive effects of exercise: a meta-analysis of
randomized trials. Sports Med 39:491–511.
Richardson EA, Mitchell R (2010). Gender diﬀerences in
relationships between urban green space and health in the
United Kingdom. Soc. Sci. Med. 71, 568–575.
Roe, J. and Aspinall, P A. (2011a): The restorative outcomes
of forest versus indoor settings in young people with varying
behaviour states. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, issue
3, Volume 10.
Roe, J. and Aspinall, P A (2011b): The restorative beneﬁts of
walking in urban and rural settings in adults with good and poor
mental health; Health and Place, 17: 103–113.
Roe J, Ward Thompson C, Aspinall PA, Brewer MJ, Duﬀ E,
Miller D, Mitchell R, Angela Clow (2013), Green Space and
Stress: Evidence from Cortisol Measures in Deprived Urban
Communities, International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 10(9): 4086–4103.
Rook, G. A. W. (2013). Regulation of the immune system
by biodiversity from the natural environment: An ecosystem
service essential to health. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.,
110(46): 18360–18367.
Rydin, Y., Bleahu, A., Davies, M., Dávila, J. D., Friel, S., De
Grandis, G., Groce, N., et al. (2012). Shaping cities for health:
complexity and the planning of urban environments in the
21st century. The Lancet, 379(9831), 2079–2108.
Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015).
Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem
services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities
to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem
Services, 12, 1–15.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 329

Schizophrenia Commission (2012) The abandoned illness: a
report from the Schizophrenia Commission. London: Rethink
Mental Illness. http://www.recoverydevon.co.uk/download/
schizophrenia_commission_report.pdf last accessed 28.06.12
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology
Of Human-Nature Relations. In P. Schmuck & P.W. Schultz
(Eds.), Psychology of Sustainable Development (pp. 61–78).
Springer US.
Shin WS, Jaakson R, Kim EI (2001) Beneﬁts-based analysis
of visitor use of Sorak-San National Park in Korea. Environ
Manage 28, 413–419.
Shwartz A, Turbe A, Simon L, Julliard R. (2014). Enhancing
urban biodiversity and its inﬂuence on city-dwellers: an
experiment. Biol Conservat. 171: 82–90.
Skevington, S. (2009). Quality of Life, Biodiversity and
Health: Observations and Applications. In Sala OE, Meyerson
LA, & Parmesan C, 2009. Sala, O. E., Meyerson, L. A., &
Parmesan, C. (Eds.). (2012). Biodiversity change and human
health: from ecosystem services to spread of disease, Island Press,
Washington DC, USA.
Speldewinde PC, Cook A, Davies P, Weinstein P (2009)
A relationship between environmental degradation and
mental health in rural Western Australia. Health and Place
15: 880–887.
Street, G., James, R., & Cutt, H. (2007). The relationship
between organised physical recreation and mental health.
Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 18(3), 236–239.
Strohbach, M. W., Haase, D., & Kabisch, N. (2009). Birds and
the city: urban biodiversity, land use, and socioeconomics.
Ecology and Society, 14(2), 31.
Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Owen, N. (2008).
Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and
mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social
interaction explain the relationships? Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 62, 9.
Tanner CC, Clayton JS, Harper LM 1986. Observations on
aquatic macrophytes in 26 northern New Zealand lakes. New
Zealand Journal of Botany 24: 539–551.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., Spencer, C., & Blades, M. (2006). Is
contact with nature important for healthy child development?
State of the evidence. Children and their environments:
Learning, using and designing spaces, 124.
Thompson-Coon J, Boddy K, Stein RW, Barton J, Depledge
MH (2011) Does participating in physical activity in outdoor
natural environments have a greater eﬀect on physical and
mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic
review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45: 1761–1772
Tilt J, Unfried T, Roca B (2007) Using objective and subjective
measures of neighborhood greenness and accessible
destinations for understanding walking trips and BMI in
Seattle, Washington. Am. J. Health Promotion 21: 371–379.
Townsend, M. & Ebden, M. (2006), Feel Blue, Touch Green,
Final Report, Deakin University.

Townsend, M., Henderson-Wilson, C., Warner, E. and Weiss,
L. (2015). Healthy Parks Healthy People: the state of the evidence
2015. Parks Victoria, Melbourne.
Ulrich RS (1981) Natural versus urban scenes: Some
psychophysiological eﬀects. Environ Behav 13, 523–556.
Ulrich RS (1983) Aesthetic and aﬀective response to natural
environment. Behavior and the natural environment New
York, Plenum Press 1983, 85–125.
Ulrich RS (1984). View through a window may inﬂuence
recovery from surgery. Science 224, 420–421.
UN-habitat, & United Nations Human Settlements
Programme. (2010). State of the World’s Cities 2010/11:
Bridging the Urban Divide. Earthscan.
Van den Berg AE, Custers MHG (2011) Gardening promotes
neuroendocrine and aﬀective restoration from stress. J Health
Psychol 16, 3–11.
van Dillen SME., de Vries S, Groenewegen PP, Spreeuwenber
P (2012) Green space in urban neighbourhoods and residents’
health: Adding quality to quantity. J. Epidemiol. Commun.
Health 66: e8.
Veitch J, Ball K, Crawford D, Abbott GR, Salmon J. (2012).
Park Improvements and Park Activity: A Natural Experiment.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(6), 616–619. doi:
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.015.
Veitch, J., Salmon, J., Carver, A., Timperio, A., Crawford, D.,
Fletcher, E., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). A natural experiment
to examine the impact of park renewal on park-use and parkbased physical activity in a disadvantaged neighbourhood:
the REVAMP study methods. BMC public health, 14(1), 600.
Waltner-Toews, D. 2004. Ecosystem Sustainability and Health:
A Practical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, C. W., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A.,
& Miller, D. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress
in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol
patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221–229.
Doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015
Webb, J., Mergler, D., Parkes, M. W., Saint-Charles, J., Spiegel,
J., Waltner-Toews, D., et al. (2010). Tools for Thoughtful
Action: the role of ecosystem approaches to health in
enhancing public health. Canadian Journal of Public Health,
101, 439–441.
Wellman, J. D., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Smith, A. C. (1982).
Recreation specialization and norms of depreciative behaviour
among canoeists. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(4), 323–340.
Wells, N. M. (2014). The Role of Nature in Children’s
Resilience: Cognitive and Social Processes. In Greening in
the Red Zone (pp. 95–109). Springer Netherlands.
Werner, P., & Zahner, R. (2010). Urban patterns and biological
diversity: a review. Urban biodiversity and design, (7), 145.
Wilcox, B. A., Aguirre, A. A., & Horwitz, P. 2012) Connecting
Ecology, Health, and Sustainability. In A. A. Aguirre, R. S.
Ostfeld, & P. Daszak (Eds.), New directions in conservation
medicine: Applied cases of ecological health. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

330 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Williams, D. R., & Huffman, M. G. (1986). Recreation
specialization as a factor in backcountry trail choice. General
Technical Report, Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest
Service, (INT-212), 339–344.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). Strengthening
mental health promotion (Fact Sheet No. 220). World Health
Organisation. Geneva, Switzerland.
Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Tonne, C., Armstrong, B. G.,
Ashiru, O., Banister, D., et al. (2009). Public health beneﬁts
of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land
transport. The Lancet, 374(9705), 1930–1943.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). Mental health
action plan 2013–2020. World Health Organization. Geneva,
Switzerland.
World Health Organisation Quality of Life Assessment
Group (WHOQOL) (1994). Development of the WHOQOL:
Rationale and current status. International Journal of Mental
Health 23(3); 24–26

Bandyopadhyay, J; Kraemer, D; Kattelmann, R and
Kundzewicz, ZW (1997) ‘Highland waters: A resource of
global signi_cance.’ In Messerli, B; Ives, JD (eds), Mountains
of the World: A Global Priority, pp 131–155. New York, USA:
Parthenon.
Barlow, J. and Peres, C.A. (2008) Fire-mediated dieback and
compositional cascade in an Amazonian forest. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363 ,
1787–1794.
Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E.M., Luterbacher, J., Trigo, R.M.
& García-Herrera, R. (2011). The hot summer of 2010:
redrawing the temperature record map of Europe. Science,
332, 220–224.
Bausch, D.G. & Schwarz, L. (2014). Outbreak of Ebola virus
disease in Guinea: where ecology meets economy. PLoS
Neglected Tropical Diseases, 8, e3056.
Beaumont, L. J., Pitman, A., Perkins, S., Zimmermann, N. E.,
Yoccoz, N. G., & Thuiller, W. (2011). Impacts of climate change
on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 108(6), 2306–2311.

Yamaguchi M, Deguchi M, Miyazaki Y (2006) The eﬀects of
exercise in forest and urban environments on sympathetic
nervous activity of normal young adults. J. Int. Med. Res. 34,
152–159.

Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., &
Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the
future of biodiversity. Ecology letters, 15(4), 365–377.

Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and
feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness.
Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3–23.

Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F., & Quang, N. (2010).
Adaptive urban governance: new challenges for the second
generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change.
Sustainability Science, 5(2), 185–206.

Zylstra, M. (2014). Exploring meaningful nature experience
connectedness with nature and the revitalization of transformative
education for sustainability (Dissertation). Stellenbosch
University, South Africa.

Chapter 13
Ahmed, M., & Suphachalasai, S. (2014). Assessing the Costs of
Climate Change and Adaptation in South Asia, Mandaluyong
City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
Ali, M., Lopez, A. L., You, Y., Kim, Y. E., Sah, B., Maskery, B.,
& Clemens, J. (2012). The global burden of cholera. Bulletin
of the World Health Organization, 90(3), 209–218.
Altizer, S., Ostfeld, R.S., Johnson, P.T.J., Kutz, S. & Harvell,
C.D. (2013). Climate change and infectious diseases: from
evidence to a predictive framework. Science, 341, 514–519.
Anonymous 1989. Health in the greenhouse. The Lancet, 333,
819–820.
Armstrong, R. L. (2010). The glaciers of the Hindu KushHimalayan region: a summary of the science regarding glacier
melt/retreat in the Himalayan, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Pamir,
and Tien Shan mountain ranges. International Centre for
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
Bajracharya, S. R., & Shrestha, B. (2011). The status of glaciers
in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. International Centre for
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).

Bogardi, J. J., Dudgeon, D., Lawford, R., Flinkerbusch, E.,
Meyn, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., Vielhauer, K., & Vörösmarty,
C. (2012). Water security for a planet under pressure:
interconnected challenges of a changing world call for
sustainable solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 4(1), 35–43.
Boyden, S. (2004). The Biology of Civilisation: Understanding
Human Culture as a Force in Nature, Sydney; UNSW Press.
Bush,M. B., Silman,M. R.,McMichael, C. and Saatchi, S.
(2008) Fire, climate change and biodiversity in Amazonia:
a Late-Holocene perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1795–1802.
Butler, C.D. (2014a). Climate change and global health: a new
conceptual framework – Mini Review. CAB Reviews, 9, 027.
Butler, C.D. (ed.) (2014b). Climate Change and Global Health,
Wallingford UK, Boston, US: CABI.
Butler, C.D. (2000). Inequality, global change and the
sustainability of civilisation. Global Change and Human Health,
1, 156–172.
Callendar, G.S. (1958). On the amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. Tellus, 10, 243–248.
Campbell, A., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J. P.W., Bubb, P.,
Chenery, A., Coad, L., Dickson, B., Doswald, N., Khan, M. S.
I., Kershaw, F. and Rashid, M. (2009). Review of the Literature
on the Links between Biodiversity and Climate Change: Impacts,
Adaptation and Mitigation. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series No. 42, 124
pages.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 331

Carpenter, K. E., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R. B., Banks,
S., Bruckner, A., Chiriboga, A., Cortes, J., Delbeek, J., De
Vantier, L., Edgar, G., Edwards, A., Fenner, D., Guzman,
H., Hoeksema, B., Hodgson, G., Johan, O., Licuanan, W.,
Livingstone, S., Lovell, E., Moore, J., Obura, D., Ochavillo, D.,
Polidoro, B., Precht, W., Quibilan, M., Reboton, C., Richards,
Z., Rogers, A., Sanciangco, J., Sheppard, A., Sheppard, C.,
smith, J., Stuart, S., Turak, E., Veron, J., Wallace, C., Weil,
E., & Wood, E. (2008). One-third of reef-building corals
face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local
impacts. Science, 321(5888), 560–563.
Castree, N., Adams, W.M., Barry, J., Brockington, D., Buscher,
B., Corbera, E., Demeritt, D., Duﬀy, R., Felt, U., Neves, K.,
Newell, P., Pellizzoni, L., Rigby, K., Robbins, P., Robin, L.,
Bird Rose, D., Ross, A., Schlossberg, D., Soerlin, S., West, P.,
Whitehead, M., & Wynne, B. (2014). Changing the intellectual
climate. Nature Clim. Change, 4, 763–768.
Cavaliere, C. (2009). The effects of climate change on
medicinal and aromatic plants. Herbal Gram, 81, 44–57.
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). (2007).
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation. Carbon Forestry Research
Program. Available at: www.cifor.cgiar.org/carbofor.
Chapin, F.S. III, Callaghan, T.V., Bergeron, Y., Fukuda, M.,
Johnstone, J.F., Juday, G. & Zimov, S. (2004). Global Change
and the Boreal Forest: Thresholds, Shifting States, or Gradual
Change. Ambio, 33: 361–365.
Chaudhary, P., & Aryal, K. P. (2009). Global Warming in
Nepal: Challenges and Policy Imperatives. Journal of Forest
and Livelihood, 8(1), 4–13.
Chettri, N., Bandana Shakya, B., and Sharma, E. (2011).
Enhancing Ecological And People’s Resilience: Implementing
the CBD’s Ecosystem Approach in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan
Region. In CBD, Secretariat (2011). Contribution of Ecosystem
Restoration to the Objectives of the CBD and a Healthy Planet
for All People. Abstracts of Posters Presented at the 15th
Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientiﬁc, Technical
and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, 7–11 November 2011, Montreal, Canada. Technical
Series No. 62. Montreal, SCBD, 116 pp.
Chua, K.B. (2003). Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia. Journal
of Clinical Virology 26, 265–275.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2014) Global
Biodiversity Outlook 4. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2012). CBD,
Secretariat. (2012). Report of the expert group on maintaining
the ability of biodiversity to continue to support the water cycle.
UNEP/CBD/COP/11/INF/2.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010) Global
Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2009). Connecting
Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation:
Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on
Biodiversity and Climate Change. Montreal, Technical Series
No. 41, 126 pages.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2003).
Interlinkages between biological diversity and climate change.
Advice on the integration of biodiversity considerations into the
implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change and its Kyoto protocol. Montreal, SCBD, 154 pp.
(CBD Technical Series no. 10).
Corvalán, C., Hales, S., McMichael, A.J., Butler C.D., CampbellLendrum D., Confalonieri U., Leitner, K., Lewis, N., Patz, J.,
Polson, K., Scheraga, J., Woodward, A., Younes, M., & MA
authors. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Health
Synthesis. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy,
R., Friel, S., Groce, N., Johnson, A., Kett, M., Lee, M., Levy.,
C., Maslin, M., McCoy, D., McGuire, B., Montgomery, H.,
Napier, D., Pagel, C., Patel, J., Puppim de Oliveira, J.A.,
Redclift, N., Rees, H., Rogger, D., Scott, J., Stephenson,
J., Twigg, J., Wolﬀ, J., Patterson, C. (2009). Managing the
health eﬀects of climate change: lancet and University College
London Institute for Global Health Commission. The Lancet,
373(9676), 1693–1733.
Cramer, W., Bondeau, A., Woodward, F. I., Prentice, I. C.,
Betts, R. A., Brovkin, V., Cox, P.M., Fisher, V., Foley, J.A.,
Friend, A.D., Kucharik, C., Lomas, M., Ramankutty, N., Sitch,
S., Smith, B., White, A., Young-Molling, C. (2001). Global
response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to
CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global
vegetation models. Global change biology, 7(4), 357–373.
Das, S. & Vincent, J.R. (2009). Mangroves protected villages
and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 7357–7360.
Destouni, G., F. Jaramillo, and C. Prieto C. 2013. Hydroclimatic shifts driven by human water use for food and energy
production. Nature Climate Change 3:213–217.
Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., Feely, R. A., & Kleypas, J. A. (2009).
Ocean acidiﬁcation: the other CO2 problem. Marine Science, 1.
Dora, C., Haines, A., Balbus, J., Fletcher, E., Adair-Rohani,
H., Alabaster, G., Hossain, R., de Onis, M., Branca, F., Neira,
M. (2014). Indicators linking health and sustainability in
the post-2015 development agenda. The Lancet, published
on-line. DOI: 10.1016/S0140–6736(14)60605-X.
Doswald, N., & Osti, M. (2011). Ecosystem-based Approaches
to Adaptation and Mitigation: Good Practice Examples and
Lessons Learned in Europe. BfN, Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation.
Ebi, K. L., Woodruﬀ, R., von Hildebrand, A., & Corvalan, C.
(2007). Climate change-related health impacts in the Hindu
Kush–Himalayas. EcoHealth, 4(3), 264–270.
Elmhagen, B., Destouni, G., Angerbjörn, A., Borgström, S.,
Boyd, E., Cousins, S. A et al.(2015). Interacting eﬀects of
change in climate, human population, land use, and water
use on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecology and
Society, 20(1), 23.
Epstein, P. R. (2001). Climate change and emerging infectious
diseases. Microbes and infection, 3(9), 747–754.

332 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Eriksson, M., Jianchu, X., Shrestha, A. B., Vaidya, R. A., Nepal,
S., & Sandström, K. (2009). The changing Himalayas: impact of
climate change on water resources and livelihoods in the greater
Himalayas. International centre for integrated mountain
development (ICIMOD).
Fabre, B., Piou, D., Desprez-Loustau, M.-L., & Marçais, B.
(2011). Can the emergence of pine Diplodia shoot blight in
France be explained by changes in pathogen pressure linked
to climate change? Global Change Biology, 17, 3218–3227.
Feachem, R., Phillips, A.A., Hwang, J., Cotter, C., Wielgosz,
B., Greenwood, B.M., Sabot, O., Rodriguez, M., Abeyasinghe,
R., Ghebreyesus, T., Snow, R. (2010). Shrinking the malaria
map: progress and prospects. The Lancet, 376, 1566–1578.
February, E. C.,West,A. G. and Newton, R. J. (2007) The
relationship between rainfall, water source and growth for
an endangered tree. Austral Ecology, 32 , 397–402.
Fleurbaey, M. & Blanchet, D. (2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring
Welfare and Assessing Sustainability, New York, Oxford
University Press.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). FAO World Food
Summit: Factsheet Water and Food Security. Available online:
www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/fsheets/water.pdf.
Gething, P.W., Smith, D.L., Patil, A.P., Tatem, A.J., Snow, R.W.
& Hay, S.I. (2010). Climate change and the global malaria
recession. Nature, 465, 342–346.
Goulden, M., Naess, L.O., Vincent, K., Adger, W.N. (2009).
Accessing diversiﬁcation, networks and traditional resource
management as adaptations to climate extremes. In: Adapting
to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance; Adger, W.N.,
Lorenzoni, I., O’Brien, K.L., Eds.; University of Cambridge:
Cambridge, UK; pp. 448–463.
Haines, A., Kovats, R. S., Campbell-Lendrum, D., & Corvalán,
C. (2006). Climate change and human health: Impacts,
vulnerability and public health. Public health, 120(7),
585–596.
Haines, A., Alleyne, G., Kickbusch, I. & Dora, C. (2012).
From the Earth Summit to Rio+20: integration of health
and sustainable development. The Lancet, 379, 2189–2197.
Haines, A., McMichael, A.J., Smith, K.R., Roberts, I.,
Woodcock, J., Markandya, A.,Armstrong, B., CampbellLendrum, D., Dangour, A., Davies, M., Bruce, N., Tonne, C.,
Barrett, M., Wilkinson, P.. (2009). Public health eﬀects of
strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and
implications for policy makers. The Lancet, 374, 2104–2114.
Hales, S., Edwards, S., Kovats, R. (2003). Impacts on
health of climate extremes. In:McMichael, A., ed. Climate
change and health: risks and responses. Geneva, World Health
Organization.
Harley, C. D., Randall Hughes, A., Hultgren, K. M., Miner, B.
G., Sorte, C. J., Thornber, C. S., Rodriguez, L., Tomanek, L.,
& Williams, S. L. (2006). The impacts of climate change in
coastal marine systems. Ecology letters, 9(2), 228–241.

Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity
management in the face of climate change: a review of 22
years of recommendations. Biological conservation, 142(1),
14–32.
Hoberg, E. P., & Brooks, D. R. (2015). Evolution in action:
climate change, biodiversity dynamics and emerging
infectious disease. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 370(1665),
20130553.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P. J., Hooten, A. J., Steneck,
R. S., Greenﬁeld, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C., Sale, P., Edwards,
A., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C., Iglesias-Prieto,
R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R., Dubi, A., & Hatziolos, M. E.
(2007). Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean
acidiﬁcation. Science, 318(5857), 1737–1742.
Horton, R. (2013). Oﬄine: Planetary health – a new vision
for the post-2015 era. The Lancet, 382, 1012.
Huq, A., Small, E. B., West, P. A., Huq, M. I., Rahman, R., &
Colwell, R. R. (1983). Ecological relationships between Vibrio
cholerae and planktonic crustacean copepods. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 45(1), 275–283.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
(2014a). Chapter 1, In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y.
Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen,
S. Schl.mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014b).
Technical Summary, In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y.
Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen,
S. Schl.mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
(2014c). Chapter 11: Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use (AFOLU), In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y.
Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen,
S. Schl.mer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.

Harvell, C. D., Mitchell, C. E., Ward, J. R., Altizer, S., Dobson,
A. P., Ostfeld, R. S., & Samuel, M. D. (2002). Climate warming
and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science,
296(5576), 2158–2162.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 333

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
(2014d). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change
2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J.
Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,
Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy,
S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–32.

McMichael, T., Montgomery, H. and Costello, A. (2012).
Health risks, present and future, from global climate change.
British Medical Journal, 344, e1359-e1363.

Jeger, M. J., & Pautasso, M. (2008). Plant disease and
global change – the importance of long-term data sets. New
Phytologist, 177, 8–11.

McMichael, A.J., Smith, K.R. & Corvalan, C.F. (2000). The
sustainability transition: a new challenge [editorial]. Bulletin
of the World Health Organization, 78, 1067.

Johnstone, S. & Mazo, J. 2011. Global Warming and the Arab
Spring. Survival, 53, 11–17.

McMichael, A.J., Haines, A., Slooﬀ, R. & Kovats, S. (eds.)
1996. Climate Change and Human Health, Geneva: World
Health Organization.

Jones, K. E., Patel, N. G., Levy, M. A., Storeygard, A., Balk,
D., Gittleman, J. L., & Daszak, P. (2008). Global trends in
emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451(7181), 990–993.
Laﬀerty, K.D. 2009. The ecology of climate change and
infectious diseases. Ecology, 90, 888–900.
Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Geist, H. J., Agbola, S. B.,
Angelsen, A., Bruce, J. W., Coomes, O., Dirzo, R., Fischer, G.,
Folke, C., George, P., Homewood, K., Imbernon, J., Leemans,
R., Li, X., Moran, E., Mortimore, M., Ramakrishnan, P.,
Richards, J., Skanes, H., Steﬀen, W., Stone, G., Svedin, U.,
Veldkamp, T., Vogel, C., & Xu, J. (2001). The causes of landuse and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global
environmental change, 11(4), 261–269.
Lancet-Rockefeller Foundation Commission on Planetary
Health (2015) forthcoming
Lapola, D. M., Oyama, M. D., & Nobre, C. A. (2009). Exploring
the range of climate biome projections for tropical South
America: the role of CO2 fertilization and seasonality. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 23(3).
Leaf, A. 1989. Potential health eﬀects of global climatic and
environmental changes. The New England Journal of Medicine,
321, 1577–1583.
Lipp, E. K., Huq, A., & Colwell, R. R. (2002). Eﬀects of global
climate on infectious disease: the cholera model. Clinical
microbiology reviews, 15(4), 757–770.
Luis, A.D., Hayman, D.T.S., O’Shea, T.J., Cryan, P.M., Gilbert,
A.T., Pulliam, J.R.C.,Mills, J., Timonin, M., Willis, C.,
Cunningham, A., Fooks, A., Rupprecht, C., Wood, J., & Webb,
C. 2013. A comparison of bats and rodents as reservoirs of
zoonotic viruses: are bats special? Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 280.
Martínez, R., Hemming, D., Malone, L., Bermudez, N.,
Cockﬁeld, G., Diongue, A., Hansen, J., Hildebrand, A., Ingram,
K., Jakeman, G., Kadi, M., McGregor, G., Mushtag, S., Rao, P.,
Pulwarty, R., Ndiaye, O., Srinavasan, G., Seck, Eh., White, N.
& Zougmoré, R. (2012). Improving climate risk management
at local level–techniques, case studies, good practices and
guidelines for World Meteorological Organization members.

McMichael, A.J. & Wilcox, B.A. (2009). Climate change,
human health, and integrative research: a transformative
imperative. EcoHealth, 6, 163–165.
McMichael, A. J., Campbell-Lendrum, D. H., Corvalán, C.
F., Ebi, K. L., Githeko, A. K., Scheraga, J. D., & Woodward,
A. (2003). Climate change and human health: risks and
responses. World Health Organization.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005), Ecosystems
and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis, Washington, DC
(World Resources Institute).
Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J.,
& Rivington, M. (2013). Climate change and Ecosystembased Adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to buﬀering
climate change impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 5(1), 67–71.
Naumann, Sandra, Gerardo Anzaldua, Pam Berry, Sarah
Burch, McKenna Davis, Ana Frelih-Larsen, Holger Gerdes
and Michele Sanders (2011): Assessment of the potential of
ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and
mitigation in Europe. Final report to the European Commission,
DG Environment, Contract no. 070307/2010/580412/SER/
B2, Ecologic institute and Environmental Change Institute,
Oxford University Centre for the Environment
Orr, J. C., Fabry, V. J., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Doney, S. C.,
Feely, R. A., Gnanadesikan, A., Gruber, N., Ishida, A., Joos,
F., Key, R., Lindsay, K., Maier-Reimer, E., Matear, R., Monfray,
P., Mouchet, A., Najjar, R., Plattner, G., Rodgers, K., Sabine,
C., Sarmiento, J., Schlitzer, R., Slater, R., Totterdell, I., Weirig,
M., Yamanaka, Y., & Yool, A. (2005). Anthropogenic ocean
acidiﬁcation over the twenty-ﬁrst century and its impact on
calcifying organisms. Nature, 437(7059), 681–686.
Padulosi, S., Heywood, V., Hunter, D., & Jarvis, A. (2011).
Underutilized species and climate change: current status
and outlook. Crop Adaptation to Climate Change. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, UK, 507–521.
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent
ﬁngerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems.
Nature, 421(6918), 37–42.
Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses
to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution,
and Systematics, 637–669.
Parmesan, C., & Matthews, J. (2006). Biological impacts of
climate change. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer
Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts, 333–374.

334 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Parmesan, C., & Martens, P. (2009). Climate change, wildlife,
and human health. In SCOPE / DIVERSITAS Assessment:
Biodiversity Change and Human Health: From Ecosystem
Services to Spread of Disease, Island Press.
Parmesan, C., Duarte, C., Poloczanska, E., Richardson, A.J.
& Singer, M.C. (2011). Overstretching attribution. Nature
Climate Change, 1, 2–4.
Patz, J. A. (2001). Public health risk assessment linked to
climatic and ecological change. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment: An International Journal, 7(5), 1317–1327.
Patz, J. A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T., & Foley, J. A.
(2005). Impact of regional climate change on human health.
Nature, 438(7066), 310–317.
Pautasso, M., Döring, T. F., Garbelotto, M., Pellis, L., & Jeger,
M. J. (2012). Impacts of climate change on plant diseases –
opinions and trends. European Journal of Plant Pathology,
133(1), 295–313.
Pereira, H. M., Leadley, P. W., Proença, V., Alkemade, R.,
Scharlemann, J. P., Fernandez-Manjarrés, J. F., Araújo, M.,
Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Cheung, W.,W., L., Chini, L., Cooper,
H., D., Gilman, E., L., Guénette, S., Hurtt,G., Huntington,
H., Mace, G., Oberdorﬀ, T., Revenga, C., Rodrigues, P.,
Scholes, R., Sumaila, U. & Walpole, M. (2010). Scenarios for
global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science, 330(6010),
1496–1501.
Plowright, R.K., Foley, P., Field, H.E., Dobson, A.P., Foley,
J.E., Eby, P., & Daszak, P. 2011. Urban habituation, ecological
connectivity and epidemic dampening: the emergence of
Hendra virus from ﬂying foxes (Pteropus spp.). Proceedings
of the Royal Society B, 278, 3703–12
Price, M. F. (1998). Mountains: globally important ecosystems.
UNASYLVA-FAO-, 3–12.
Pulliam, J.R.C., Epstein, J.H., Dushoﬀ, J., Rahman, S.A.,
Bunning, M., Jamaluddin, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., Field, H.E.,
Dobson, A.P., Daszak, P.; Henipavirus Ecology Research
Group (HERG). 2012. Agricultural intensiﬁcation, priming
for persistence and the emergence of Nipah virus: a lethal
bat-borne zoonosis. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 9,
89–101.
Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., Balaban, O., Doll, C., MorenoPenaranda, R., Gasparatos, A., Iossifova, C., Aki, S. 2010.
Cities, Biodiversity and Governance: Perspectives and challenges
of the implementation of the convention on biological diversity at
the city level, Yokohama: United Nations University.
Purse, B. V., Mellor, P. S., Rogers, D. J., Samuel, A. R.,
Mertens, P. P., & Baylis, M. (2005). Climate change and the
recent emergence of bluetongue in Europe. Nature Reviews
Microbiology, 3(2), 171–181.
Randolph, S.E. 2009. Perspectives on climate change impacts
on infectious diseases. Ecology, 90, 927–931.
Raskin, P., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R.
& Swart, R. 2002. Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of
the Times Ahead, Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute.

Rockström, J., Steﬀen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., F. Stuart
Chapin, I., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T., Scheﬀer, M., Folke1, C.,
Schellnhuber, H., J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C., Hughes, T., van
der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V.,
Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen,
P. & Foley, J. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity.
Nature, 461, 472–475.
Roy, B. A., Güsewell, S., & Harte, J. (2004). Response of plant
pathogens and herbivores to a warming experiment. Ecology,
85(9), 2570–2581.
Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomﬁeld,
J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson,
R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A.,
Oesterheld, M., Poﬀ, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker,
M., Wall, D.H., 2000. Biodiversity – global biodiversity
scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774.
Salazar, L. F., Nobre, C. A., & Oyama, M. D. (2007). Climate
change consequences on the biome distribution in tropical
South America. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(9).
Santamouris, M. (Ed.). (2013). Energy and climate in the
urban built environment. Routledge.
Schiedek, D., Sundelin, B., Readman, J. W., & Macdonald,
R. W. (2007). Interactions between climate change and
contaminants. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(12), 1845–1856.
Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. (2012). Atmospheric chemistry
and physics: from air pollution to climate change. John Wiley
& Sons.
Selwood KE, McGeoch MA, & Mac Nally R (2014) The eﬀects
of climate change and land-use change on demographic rates
and population viability. Biological Reviews; doi: 10.1111/
brv.12136
Siraj, A.S., Santos-Vega, M., Bouma, M.J., Yadeta, D.,
Carrascal, D.R. & Pascual, M. 2014. Altitudinal changes in
malaria incidence in highlands of Ethiopia and Colombia.
Science, 343, 1154–1158.
Steﬀen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P. & McNeill, J. 2011.
The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369, 842–867.
Stott, R. 2006. Healthy response to climate change. BMJ, 332,
1385–1387.
Syvitski, J.P.M., Kettner, A.J., Overeem, I., Hutton, E.W.H.,
Hannon, M.T., Brakenridge, G.R Day, J., Vörösmarty, C., Saito,
Y., Giosan, L., & Nicholls, R. (2009). Sinking deltas due to
human activities. Nature Geoscience, 2, 681–686.
Tamplin, M. L., Gauzens, A. L., Huq, A., Sack, D. A., & Colwell,
R. R. (1990). Attachment of Vibrio cholerae serogroup O1
to zooplankton and phytoplankton of Bangladesh waters.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56(6), 1977–1980.
Templeton, A. R., Shaw, K., Routman, E., & Davis, S. K.
(1990). The genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation.
Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 13–27.

Reid, H. (2015). Ecosystem-and community-based
adaptation: learning from community-based natural resource
management. Climate and Development, (ahead-of-print), 1–6.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 335

Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M.,
Beaumont, L.J., Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., de Siqueira,
M.F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van
Jaarsveld, A.S., Midgley, G.F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M.A.,
Peterson, A.T., Phillips, O.L., Williams, S.E., 2004. Extinction
risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148.
Tirado M.C. et al. (2010) Climate change and food safety: a
review. Food Research International 43: 1745 – 1765.
Tucker, C. J., Wilson, J. M., Mahoney, R., Anyamba, A.,
Linthicum, K., & Myers, M. F. (2002). Climatic and ecological
context of the 1994–1996 Ebola outbreaks. Photogrammetric
engineering and remote sensing, 68(2), 147–152.
Türkeş, M. (2014). Impacts of the Climate Change on
Agricultural Food Security, Traditional Knowledge and
Agroecology. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and
Technology, 2(2).
Vineis, P., Chan, Q. & Khan, A. (2011). Climate change
impacts on water salinity and health. Journal of Epidemiology
and Global Health, 1, 5–10.

Chapter 14
Adger, W.N., J.M. Pulhin, J. Barnett, G.D. Dabelko, G.K.
Hovelsrud, M. Levy, Ú. Oswald Spring, and C.H. Vogel,
2014: Human security. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova,
B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R.
Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Ahlsten, N., T. Giang, T. Hwang , K. Lam, H. Mathews, et
al. (2005). Protracted Refugee Situations: A Case Analysis of
Kakuma Camp, Kenya. Conducted by the Princeton Refugee
Initiative of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Aﬀairs, Princeton University.
Alliance Development Works (ADW), 2012. World Risk Report
2012. ADW, Berlin, Germany.

Vörösmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., & Lammers, R. B.
(2000). Global water resources: vulnerability from climate
change and population growth. Science, 289(5477), 284–288.

Alongi, D.M. 2008. Mangrove Forests: Resilience, Protection
from Tsunamis, and Responses to Global Climate Change.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 76: 1–13.

Welbergen, J., Klose S, Markus N & Eby, P. 2008. Climate
change and the eﬀects of temperature extremes on Australian
ﬂying-foxes. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 419–425.

ARC, 2014. REWARD Project Report Updates, January-April
2014. American Refugee Committee.

World Commission on Environment and Development (ed.)
1987. Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Health Organization (WHO). World Health Assembly
resolution 61.19: climate change and health. Geneva: WHO.
2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/phe/news/wha/en/
index.html.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2012). Our Planet, Our
Health, Our Future. Human Health and the Rio Conventions.
Discussion paper. Geneva: World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/reports/
health_rioconventions.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2005) Human health
impacts from climate variability and climate change in the Hindu
Kush-Himalaya region. Report of an Inter-Regional Workshop.
Mukteshwar: WHO Regional Oﬃce for South-East Asia.
World Health Organization (WHO) & UN-HABITAT 2010.
Hidden Cities: Unmasking and Overcoming Health Inequities in
Urban Settings, Kobe, WHO Centre for Health Development
and UN Human Settlements Programme.
Wilson, M. E. (1991). [Infectious diseases in the era of the global
village]. Salud publica de Mexico, 34(3), 352–356.

Badola, R. and Hussain, S.A. 2005. Valuing ecosystem
functions: an empirical study on the storm protection
function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India.
Environmental Conservation 32:1, 85–92
Barnett CP, 2003. Mozambican Refugees in Malawi:
Livelihoods and their Impact on the Natural Resource Base.
ITAD Ltd., West Sussex, UK. Published on-line, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/4132e45c4.pdf (accessed 1 July 2014)
Barraclough, S.L. and Finger-Stich, A. 1996. Some Ecological
and Social Implications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Asia.
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Available at: http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/shenv.htm#HD_
NM_23 (accessed 11 October 2013)
BP, 2014. Fighting Nature with Nature. Bangkok Post, 12
March 2014. Available at: http://www.raksthai.org/new/hottopic-detail.php?option=&task=&tr_id=181&cat=&lang=en
(accessed 13 July 2014)
Bunch, M. J. (2011). Promoting health and well-being by
managing for social–ecological resilience: the potential of
integrating ecohealth and water resources management
approaches.
Cavaillé P, Dommanget, Daumergue N, Loucougaray G,
Spiegelberger T, Tabacchi E, Evette A, 2013. Biodiversity
assessment following a naturality gradient of riverbank
protection structures in French prealps rivers. Ecol
Engineering 53; 23–30
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans,
E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for
understanding community resilience to natural disasters.
Global environmental change, 18(4), 598–606.

336 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Das, S. and Crépin, A-S. 2013. Mangroves can Provide
Protection against Wind Damage during Storms. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 134: 98–107.
Deoja B, Dhital M, Thapa B, Wagner A, 1991, Mountain Risk
Engineering Handbook, Part I & II, International Centre for
Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, 875
pp
Du, W., FitzGerald, G. J., Clark, M., & Hou, X. Y. 2010. Health
impacts of ﬂoods. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 25(03),
265–272.
Enright, J. and Kaewmahanin, J. 2012. Feasibility Study for
Climate Smart Mangrove Restoration Activities for Developing
Resilient Livelihoods to Reduce Climate Change Impacts. Report
for Raks Thai Foundation, Thailand.
Enright, J. and Nakornchai, P. 2014. Best Practices of Mangrove
Restoration in Adopting to Climate Change in Coastal Areas under
BCRCC in Thailand. Building Coastal Resilience to Reduce
Climate Change Impact in Thailand and Indonesia (BCRCC)
Assessment Team. Mangrove Action Project.
Fattet M, Fu Y, Ghestem M, Ma W, Foulonneau M, Nespoulous
J, Le Bissonnais Y, Stokes A, 2011. Eﬀects of vegetation type
on soil resistance to erosion: relationship between aggregate
stability and shear strength. Catena 87:60–69
Feagin, R.A., Mukherjee, N., Shanker, K., Baird, A.H., Cinner,
J., Kerr, A.M., Koedam, N., Sridhar, A., Arthur, R., Jayatissa,
L.P., Seen, D.L., Monon, M., Rodriguez, S., Shamsuddoha, M.
and Dahdouh-Guebas, F. 2010. Shelter from the Storm? Use
and Misuse of Coastal Vegetation Bioshields for Managing
Natural Disasters. Conservation Letters, 3: 1–11.
Ghestem M, Sidle RC, and Stokes A, 2011. The Inﬂuence of
Plant Root Systems on Subsurface Flow: Implications for
Slope Stability. BioScience 61(11); 869–879
Gitau GC, 2011. The GIZ Dadaad household energy project:
Presentation during an improved cookstove colloquium
at Nairobi Sarova Panaftic, 7th June 2011. GIZ (Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
GmbH), Bonn, Germany.
Giri, C., Zhu, Z., Tieszen, L.L., Singh, A., Gillette, S. &
Kelmelis, JA, 2008. Mangrove forest distributions and
dynamics (1975–2005) of the tsunami-aﬀected region of
Asia. Journal of Biogeography 35; 519–528
Global Risks Perception Surveys 2013 and 2014, World
Economic Forum.
Gonzalez, B. 2006. No, They’re not Magic, but Mushrooms
help Refugees in Rwanda. 13 June 2006. Available at: http://
www.unhcr.org/448eb37f4.html (accessed 6 July 2014)
Gouzerh, A., Laize, A., Assangono, M., Wilson, M. and
Nespoulous, J. 2013. Ecological Engineering for Protecting
Against Shallow Landslides in China: Rehabilitation of a
Mountain Slope in China’s Southeast. Ecological Engineering
Module, Training GEEFT 2012/2013.
Green, W.G., 2008 Resistance and Resilience: Some Basic
Postulates… Disaster Theory Series No. 4.

Guha-Sapir D, D’aoust O, 2011. Demographic and health
consequences of civil conﬂict: background paper. In: World
development report 2011: conﬂict, security, and development.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Guha-Sapir D, Hoyois P, Below R., 2013. Annual Disaster
Statistical Review 2012: The Numbers and Trends. Brussels:
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Guha-Sapir D, Hoyois Ph., Below. R., 2014 Annual Disaster
Statistical Review 2013: The Numbers and Trends. Brussels.
CRED
Hanson T, 2011. War and Biodiversity Conservation: The Role
of Warfare Ecology. In: Warfare Ecology. NATO Science for
Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security 2011, pp
125–132.
Huxham M, Kumara MP, Jayatissa LP, Krauss KW, Kairo J,
Langat J, Mencuccini M, Skov MW, Kirui B, 2010. Intra- and
interspeciﬁc facilitation in mangroves may increase resilience to
climate change threats. Phil Trans R Soc B, 365; 2127–2135.
Hyndman, J. 2009. Refugees, in Gregory, D. et al. (Eds.) The
Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th Edition, pp. 628–629.
Jambiya, G., S. Milledge, and N. Mtango. 2007. ‘Night time
spinach’: conservation and livelihood implications of wild meat use
in refugee situations in north-western Tanzania. TRAFFIC East/
Southern Africa, Dar es Salaam , Tanzania
Jayakody, S., Jayasinghe, J.M.P.K. and Wijesundara, A. 2012.
Active vs. Passive Restoration of Mangroves: Developing
Models for Sustainable Rejuvenation of Mangrove Ecosystems
used for Shrimp Farming in North-Western Province of
Sri Lanka. In MFF, 2012. Sharing Lessons on Mangrove
Restoration. Proceedings and a Call for Action from an MFF
Regional Colloquium. 30–31 August 2012, Mamallapuram,
India. pp. 179–188.
Jayasurya, P.K. 2007. Global Warming: The Severe Threat to
Mangrove Ecosystems in Future. Science India, 37–41.
Kathiresan, K. 2008. Global Policies: Role of Institutions. UN
Universities.
Kathiresan, K. and Rajendran, N. 2005. Coastal Mangrove
Forests Mitigated Tsunami. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science, 65: 601–606.Ke C, Feng Z, Wu X, Tu F, 2003.
Design Principles and Engineering Samples of Applying Vetiver
Eco-engineering Technology for Steep Slope and River Bank
Stabilisation. Paper presented at ICV3, Guangzhou, China,
October 2003.
Keim, M. E., 2008. Building human resilience: the role of
public health preparedness and response as an adaptation
to climate change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
35(5), 508–516.
Kouadio, I. K., Aljunid, S., Kamigaki, T., Hammad, K., &
Oshitani, H., 2012. Infectious diseases following natural
disasters: prevention and control measures
Leaning J, Guha-Sapir D, 2013. Natural Disasters, Armed
Conﬂict, and Public Health. N Eng J Med 369(19); 1836–1842

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 337

Lyytinen, E., 2009. Household energy in refugee and IDPs
camps – challenges and solutions for UNHCR. New Issues in
Refugee Research, UNHCR, Geneva.
Mao, Z., Bourrier, F., Stokes, A. and Fourcaud, T. 2014. ThreeDimensional Modelling of Slope Stability in Heterogeneous
Montane Forest Ecosystems. Ecological Modelling, 273: 11–22.
MAP, 2012. Mangrove Action Project Annual Review 2012
McIvor, A., Spencer, T., Möller, I. and Spalding, M. 2012.
Storm Surge Reduction by Mangroves. Natural Coastal
Protection Series: Report 2. Cambridge Coastal Research Unit
Working Paper 41.
McIvor AL, Moller I, Spencer T, Spalding M, 2013. Mangroves
as a sustainable coastal defence. Paper presented at the 7th
International Conference on Asian and Paciﬁc Coasts, Bali,
Indonesia, September 2013. Available at: http://repository.
unhas.ac.id/handle/123456789/7666
Mercy Corps, 2014. Tapped Out: Water Scarcity and Refugee
Pressures in Jordan. Mercy Corps, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Neria, Y., Nandi, A., & Galea, S. 2008. Post-traumatic stress
disorder following disasters: a systematic review. Psychological
Medicine, 38(04), 467–480.
Oucho, J.O. 2007. Environmental Impact of Refugees and
Internally Displaced Persons in Sub-Saharan Africa. Keynote
Address to the African Migration Alliance Biennial Workshop on
Climate Change, Environment and Migration, East London, South
Africa, 15–16 November 2007 Available at: http://www2.
warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/crer/afrobrain/oucho/publications/
environmental_impact_of_refugees_and_internally_di.pdf
(accessed 1 July 2014)
PEDRR, 2013. PEDRR Input into Post-2015 Global
Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction. PEDRR Secretariat,
Geneva. Published online, available at: http://www.unep.org/
disastersandconﬂicts/Portals/155/dnc/docs/GlobalPlatform/
Framework.pdf (accessed 1 July 2014)
Pohl M, Alig D, Körner C, Rixen C, 2009. Higher plant diversity
enhances soil stability in disturbed alpine ecosystems. Plant
Soil 324:91–102
Post WM, Kwon, KC, 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and
land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change
Biology, 6: 317–327.
ProAct, 2008. The Role of Environmental Management and
Eco-engineering in Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change
Adaptation. ProAct Network, Gland, Switzerland.
Promper C, Puissant A, Malet J-P, Glade T, 2014. Analysis of
land cover changes in the past and the future as contribution
to landslide risk scenarios. Applied Geography 53; 11–19
Quartel, S., Kroon, A., Augustinus, P.G.E.F., Van Santen, P.
and Tri, N.H. 2007. Wave Attenuation in Coastal Mangroves
in the Red River Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Asian Earth
Sciences, 29: 576–584.
Quarto, A. 2012. Ecological Mangrove Restoration (EMR):
Re-establishing a more Biodiverse and Resilient Coastal
Ecosystem with Community Participation. Mangrove Action
Project.

Raks Thai, 2014. Adaptation for Secured Human Settlement
Bamboo Fences for Mangrove Restoration, Tambon Klong
Prasong, Amphur Muang, Krabi Province. Raks Thai
Foundation.
Reubens B, Poesen J, Danjon F, Geudens G, Muys B, 2007.
The role of ﬁne and coarse roots in shallow slope stability and
soil erosion control with a focus on root system architecture:
a review. Trees 21(4); 385–402
Sarnsamak, P. 2014. Krabi Villagers Build Bamboo Barriers
to Protect the Coast. 4 March 2014. Available at: http://
www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Krabi-villagers-buildbamboo-barriers-to-protect-t-30228277.html (accessed 13
July 2014)
Sena, A., Corvalan, C., & Ebi, K., 2014. Climate Change,
Extreme Weather and Climate Events, and Health Impacts.
In: Freedman, B., Global Environmental Change: Handbook
of Global Environmental Pollution Volume 1, pp 605–613,
Springer.Shi, P. and Li, W. 1999. Rehabilitation of degraded
mountain ecosystems in southwestern China: An integrated
approach. Ambio, 28(5): 390–97.
Smith, K.R., A. Woodward, D. Campbell-Lendrum, D.D.
Chadee, Y. Honda, Q. Liu, J.M. Olwoch, B. Revich, and R.
Sauerborn, 2014: Human health: impacts, adaptation, and
co-beneﬁts. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R.
Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir,
M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma,
E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Stapleton J, (ed), 2014. Dispatches No. 353. Jesuit Refugee
Services International. Published on-line, available at: https://
en.jrs.net/newsletters_detail?ITN=MC-20140514083120
(accessed 1 July 2014).
Stokes A, Spanos I, Norris JE, Cammeraat E (eds.), 2004.
Eco- and Ground Bio-Engineering: The Use of Vegetation to
Improve Slope Stability, Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Eco-Engineering, 13–17 September 2004, Series:
Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences, vol. 103, Springer
(2007) ISBN: 978–1-4020–5592–8
Stokes A, Norris JE, Greenwood J, 2008. Introduction to
ecotechnological solutions. In: J.E. Norris, A. Stokes, S.B.
Mickovski, L.H. Cammeraat, L.P.H. van Beek, B. Nicoll,
A. Achim (eds), 2008. Slope Stability and Erosion Control:
Ecotechnological Solutions, Springer (2008), pp. 1–8.
Stokes A, Atger C, Bengough AG, Fourcaud T, Sidle RC,
2009. Desirable plant root traits for protecting natural and
engineered slopes against landslides. Plant Soil 324:1–30.
Stokes A, Sotir RB, ChenW, GhestemM, 2010. Soil bioand ecoengineering in China, past experience and present
priorities. Ecol Eng 36:247–257
Stokes A, Douglas GB, Forcaud T, Giadrossich F, Gillies C,
Hubble T et al, 2014. Ecological mitigation of hillslope
instability: ten key issues facing researchers and practitioners.
Plant Soil, 377:1–23.

338 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and Ash, N. (2009) Environmental
Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction: Healthy Ecosystems
for Human Security. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Bongaarts, J. (2015, January). Global fertility and population
trends. In Seminars in reproductive medicine (Vol. 33, No. 1,
pp. 5–10).

Unite for Sight (UfS), 2013. Refugee Health – Module 7: Refugee
and Host Community Relationships. Unite for Sight. Published
online, available at: http://www.uniteforsight.org/refugeehealth/module7 (accessed 1 July 2014)

Boserup, Ester. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth:
The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population
Pressure, Chicago: Aldine.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
2002. A critical time for the environment. In: Refugees.
no.127, p 2
UNHCR, 2014. United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees Website. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/
cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home (accessed 1 July 2014)
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster reduction
(UNISDR), 2009: Global assessment report on disaster risk
reduction. Geneva: UNISDR Secretariat.
van Slobbe E, de Vriend HJ, Aarnikhof S, Lulofs K, de Vries
M, Dircke P, 2013. Building with Nature: in search of resilient
storm surge protection strategies. Natural Hazards 66(3);
1461–1480
Watson JT, Gayer M, Connoly MA. Epidemics after natural
disasters. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13, 11 (2007)
Weingärtner, L., 2005. The concept of food and nutrition
security. Achieving Food and Nutrition Security, 3, 21–52. In:
Klaus Klennert (ed) Achieving Food and Nutrition Security
Actions to Meet the Global Challenge A Training Course Reader.
InWEnt – Capacity Building International, Germany
Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I., 2008. At risk: natural
hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.) Routledge,
New York 275 pp
World Bank, 2009. Convenient Solutions to an Inconvenient
Truth: Ecosystem-Based Approaches to Climate Change. World
Bank, Washington.
World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) (2014)
What is Disaster Management? World Confederation for
Physical Therapy. Available at: http://www.wcpt.org/disastermanagement/what-is-disaster-management (accessed 30
June 2014).

Chapter 15
Balvanera, P., Pﬁsterer, A. B., Buchmann, N., He, J. S.,
Nakashizuka, T., Raffaelli, D., and Schmid, B. (2006).
Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity eﬀects on ecosystem
functioning and services. Ecology letters, 9(10), 1146–1156.
Barnosky A.D., et al. (2012). Approaching a state shift in
Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486, 52–8.
Bogardi, J. J., Dudgeon, D., Lawford, R., Flinkerbusch, E.,
Meyn, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., Vielhauer, K., & Vörösmarty,
C. (2012). Water security for a planet under pressure:
interconnected challenges of a changing world call for
sustainable solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 4(1), 35–43.

Bongaarts, J. (2013) Demographic trends and implications
for development, paper presented at the International Union
for the Scientiﬁc Study of Population 2013 Meeting, Busan,
Republic of Korea, 26 to 31 August 2013. Downloaded from
http://iussp.org/ sites/default/ﬁles/event_call_for_papers/
Session_071_01_Bongaarts.pdf.
Bowen, K. J., Ebi, K., & Friel, S. (2014). Climate change
adaptation and mitigation: next steps for cross-sectoral action
to protect global health. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change, 19(7), 1033–1040.
Brown, L. R. (2004). Outgrowing the earth: The food
security challenge in an age of falling water tables and rising
temperatures. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Burkle, F. M. (2010). Future humanitarian crises: challenges
for practice, policy, and public health. Prehospital and disaster
medicine, 25(03), 191–199.
Campbell, A., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J. P.W., Bubb, P.,
Chenery, A., Coad, L., Dickson, B., Doswald, N., Khan, M. S.
I., Kershaw, F. and Rashid, M. (2009). Review of the Literature
on the Links between Biodiversity and Climate Change: Impacts,
Adaptation and Mitigation. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series No. 42, 124
pages.
Cardinale, B. J., Duﬀy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U.,
Perrings, C., Venail, P., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature, 486 (7401), 59–67.
CBD (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook, fourth edition,
Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity.
CBD (2013). The identiﬁcation of scientiﬁc and technical
needs for the attainment of the targets under Strategic
Goal A of the Strategic Plan For Biodiversity 2011–2020.
Submitted to the 17th meeting of the SBSTTA, 30 August
2013. Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/2/Add.1.
Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R.,
et al. (2009). Managing the health eﬀects of climate change:
lancet and University College London Institute for Global
Health Commission. The Lancet, 373(9676), 1693–1733.
Das Gupta, M., Bongaarts, J., & Cleland, J. (2011). Population,
Poverty, and Sustainable Development: A Review of the
Evidence.
Ellis E.C., Ramankutty, N., (2008) Putting people in the
map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol Environ
6:439–447.
Ezeh, A. C., Bongaarts, J., & Mberu, B. (2012). Global
population trends and policy options. The Lancet, 380(9837),
142–148.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 339

Flora, C. B. (2010). Food security in the context of energy
and resource depletion: Sustainable agriculture in developing
countries. Renewable agriculture and food systems, 25(02),
118–128.
Flora, C. B. (2010). Food security in the context of energy
and resource depletion: Sustainable agriculture in developing
countries. Renewable agriculture and food systems, 25(02),
118–128.
Freya A., Edwards-Jones, G., & Jones, J. P. (2011)
Conservation and human behaviour: lessons from social
psychology. Wildlife Research, 37(8), 658–667.
Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D., Smith, D. C., & van Putten, I. E.
(2011) Human behaviour: the key source of uncertainty in
ﬁsheries management. Fish and Fisheries, 12(1), 2–17.
Gerland P, Raftery AE, Ševčíková H, Nan Li, Danan Gu,
Spoorenberg T, Alkema L, Fosdick BK, Chunn J, Lalic N,
Bay G, Buettner T, Heilig KK, and Wilmoth J. (2014) World
population stabilization unlikely this century. Science:
234–237
Global Footprint Network, 2015. http://footprintnetwork.
org/en/index.php/GFN/page/at_a_glance/
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L.,
Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., et al. (2010). Food security: the
challenge of feeding 9 billion people. science, 327(5967),
812–818.
Hirschman, C. (1994). Why fertility changes. Annual review
of sociology, 203–233.
Horton, R. (2007). Righting the balance: energy for health.
The Lancet, 370(9591), 921–921.
IEA (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. Available
from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/
weo-2011/
IEA (2012). World Energy Outlook 2012. Available
from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/
weo- 2012/
IEA (2013). World Energy Outlook 2013. Available
from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/
weo- 2013/
Kok, M., Alkemende, R. et al. (2014). How sectors can
contribute to the sustainable use and conservation of
biodiversity. CBD Technical Series 79. PBL/Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency and Secretariat,
Convention on Biological Diversity
Leadley, P.W., Krug, C.B., Alkemade, R., Pereira, H.M., Sumaila
U.R., Walpole, M., Marques, A., Newbold, T., Teh, L.S.L, van
Kolck, J., Bellard, C., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R. and Mumby,
P.J. (2014): Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets:
An Assessment of Biodiversity Trends, Policy Scenarios and
Key Actions. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada. Technical Series 78, 500 pages.
Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., & Taylor, S.
(2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through
action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet,
372(9650), 1661–1669.

McMichael, A. J. (2013). Globalization, climate change, and
human health. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(14),
1335–1343.
McMichael, A. J., & Butler, C. D. (2011). Promoting global
population health while constraining the environmental
footprint. Annual review of public health, 32, 179–197.
McMichael, T., Montgomery, H. and Costello, A. (2012).
Health risks, present and future, from global climate change.
British Medical Journal, 344, e1359-e1363.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Ecosystems
and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Moon K and Cocklin C (2011) Participation in biodiversity
conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian
landholders. Journal of Rural Studies 27:331–342.
Neﬀ, R. A., Parker, C. L., Kirschenmann, F. L., Tinch, J., &
Lawrence, R. S. (2011). Peak oil, food systems, and public
health. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1587.
Netto, G., Bhopal, R., Lederle, N., Khatoon, J., & Jackson,
A. (2010) How can health promotion interventions be
adapted for minority ethnic communities? Five principles
for guiding the development of behavioural interventions.
Health Promotion International, daq012.
Newson RS, Lion R, Crawford R, Curtis V, Elmadfa I, et al.
(2013) Behaviour change for better health: nutrition, hygeine
and sustainability. BMC Public Health 13(Suppl 1): S1.
Parmesan, C. (2008, October). Impacts of Climate Change
on Biodiversity and Human Health. In 2008 Joint Meeting of
The Geological Society of America, Soil Science Society of America,
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies with the Gulf Coast
Section of SEPM.
Parry M, Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., van der Linden, P.,
Hanson, C., eds. (2007). Contribution of Working Group II to
the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge
University Press.
PBL, 2010. Rethinking global biodiversity strategies. PBL
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven/
The Hague, the Netherlands, 500197001.
Pereira HM, Leadley P et al. (2010) Scenarios for Global
Biodiversity in the 21st Century, Science 330, 1496 (2010);
Peterson HB, Darmstadt GL, Bongaarts J (2013) Meeting
the unmet need for family planning: Now is the time. Lancet
381, 1696–1699
Pollan M (2008) “Farmer in chief”. New Times, October
9, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/
magazine/12policy-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Population and Environment, (2007), Volume 28 Number 4–5:
Special Issue on Population and Conservation, May 2007.
Pretty, J., O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002) People,
livelihoods and collective action in biodiversity management,
pp. 61–86. In O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (Eds.)
Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities: protecting
beyond the protected. Cambridge University Press.

340 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Robbins, P. (2011). Political ecology: A critical introduction
(Vol. 16). John Wiley & Sons.
Rockström, J., Steﬀen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin,
F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.
Royal Society of London (2009) Reaping the Beneﬁts: Science
and the Sustainable Intensiﬁcation of Global Agriculture
(Royal Society, London, 2009).
Sachs, J. D. (2008) Common wealth: economics for a crowded
planet. New York: Penguin Press.
Satterthwaite, D (2009) The implications of population
growth and urbanization for climate change.
Environment & Urbanization, Vol 21(2): 545–567. DOI:
10.1177/0956247809344361.
Schusser, C. (2013). Who determines biodiversity? An
analysis of actors’ power and interests in community forestry
in Namibia. Forest Policy and Economics, 36, 42–51.
Schwartz, B. S., Parker, C. L., Hess, J., & Frumkin, H. (2011).
Public Health and Medicine in an Age of Energy Scarcity:
The Case of Petroleum. American Journal of Public Health,
101(9).
Schwarzenbach, R. P., Escher, B. I., Fenner, K., Hofstetter,
T. B., Johnson, C. A., Von Gunten, U., & Wehrli, B. (2006).
The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science,
313(5790), 1072–1077.
Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Random House
Books
Speidel, J. J., Weiss, D. C., Ethelston, S. A., & Gilbert, S. M.
(2007). Family planning and reproductive health: the link to
environmental preservation. Population and Environment,
28(4–5), 247–258.
Steﬀen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaﬀney, O., & Ludwig,
C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great
Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2053019614564785.
The Earth Institute, Colombia University. (2006). “It’s 2025.
Where Do Most People Live?”, 7 November, 2006. Retrieved
from http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2006/story07–
11–06.php.html
The Lancet (2012), Volume 380, Issue 9837, Pages 75–186,
(14–20 July 2012).
The Lancet (2015) Protecting human health in the Anthropocene
era, Report of the Lancet Commission on Planetary Health.
Forthcoming. (TITLE TBC)
Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link
environmental sustainability and human health. Nature,
515(7528), 518–522.
Tilman, D., Balzer C., Hill, J. and B.L. Befort (2011)
Global food demand and the sustainable intensiﬁcation of
agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108: 20260–4.
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolﬀ, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson,
A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W., Simberloﬀ,
D., Swackhamer, D. & Swackhamer, D. (2001). Forecasting
agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science,
292(5515), 281–284.

Tukker, A., Bulavskaya, T., Giljum, S., de Koning, A., Lutter,
S., Simas, M., et al. (2014). The global resource footprint of
nations. Carbon, water, land and materials embodied in trade
and ﬁnal consumption calculated with EXIOBASE, 2, 8.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN
DESA) (2015) http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/
population/commission/pdf/48/DESA%20Fact%20Sheet_
Final.pdf
UNEP (2015a) Developing eﬀective oﬀ-grid lighting policy:
guidance note for governments in Africa. Available from:
http://www.enlighten-initiative.org/portals/0/documents/
Resources/publications/OFG-publication-may-BDef.pdf
UNEP (2015b) Oﬀ Grid Country Lighting Assessments.
UNEP/GEF en.lighten initiative. Paris. Available from: http://
map.enlighten-initiative.org/
Viala, E. (2008). Water for food, water for life a comprehensive
assessment of water management in agriculture. Irrigation
and Drainage Systems, 22(1), 127–129.
Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological Footprint and
Appropriated Carrying Capacity: A Tool for Planning Toward
Sustainability (PhD thesis). Vancouver, Canada: School of
Community and Regional Planning. The University of British
Columbia.
Waylen, Kerry A., Fischer, Anke, McGowan, Philip J.K.,
Thirgood, Simon, J.,& MilnerWilkinson and Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level: Why More
Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Penguin.
World Economic Forum (WEF), 2011. Water Security. The
water-food-energy-climate nexus. Island Press, Washington
DC, Covelo, London.

Chapter 16
Allegrante, J. P. (2015). Policy and Environmental Approaches
in Health Promotion What Is the State of the Evidence?.
Health Education & Behavior, 42(1 suppl), 5S-7S.
Alleyne, G., Binagwaho, A., Haines, A., Jahan, S., Nugent,
R., Rojhani, A., & Stuckler, D. (2013). Embedding noncommunicable diseases in the post-2015 development
agenda. The Lancet, 381(9866), 566–574.
Barnosky A.D., et al. (2012). Approaching a state shift in
Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486: 52–8.
Barrett, C. B., Travis, A. J., & Dasgupta, P. (2011) On
biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13907–13912.
Beaglehole, R., Bonita, R., Horton, R., Adams, C., Alleyne,
G., Asaria, P., et al. (2011). Priority actions for the noncommunicable disease crisis. The Lancet, 377(9775),
1438–1447.
Biglan, A., Flay, B.R., Embry, D.D., & Sandler, I. (2012). The
Critical Role of Nurturing Environments for Promoting
Human Wellbeing. American Psychology 67(4): 257–271.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 341

Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP). (2010). Biodiversity
indicators and the 2010 Target: Experiences and lessons
learnt from the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montréal, Canada. Technical Series No. 53, 196 pages.
Brauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K. E., & Mooney,
H. A. (2007). The nature and value of ecosystem services:
an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour., 32, 67–98.
Bridgewater, P., Régnier, M, and Wang Zhen. (2012). Healthy
Planet, Healthy People. A Guide to Human Health and
Biodiversity. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
Brouwer, R., Brander, L., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E., & Bateman,
I. (2013). A synthesis of approaches to assess and value
ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. VU
University Amsterdam.
Butchart, S. H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A.,
Scharlemann, J. P., Almond, R. E., et al. (2010). Global
biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328(5982),
1164–1168.
Campbell-Lendrum, D. (2005). How much does the health
community care about global environmental change?. Global
Environmental Change, 15(4), 296–298.
Carlsson, G., & Nordström, A. (2012). Global engagement for
health could achieve better results now and after 2015. The
Lancet, 380(9853), 1533–1534.
CBD (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook, fourth edition,
Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity.
CBD (2013). Biodiversity and Sustainable Development
– The Relevance of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–
2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for the Post-2015
Development Agenda and the Sustainable Development
Goals. Submitted to the 17th meeting of the SBSTTA, 30
August 2013. Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/INF/2.
CBD, Secretariat. (2013a). The identiﬁcation of scientiﬁc
and technical needs for the attainment of the targets under
Strategic Goal A of the Strategic Plan For Biodiversity 2011–
2020. Submitted to the 17th meeting of the SBSTTA, 30
August 2013. Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/2/Add.1.
CBD, Secretariat. (2013b). The Identiﬁcation of Scientiﬁc and
Technical Needs for the Attainment of Targets 14 And 15
under Strategic Goal D of The Strategic Plan For Biodiversity
2011–2020. Submitted to the 17th meeting of the SBSTTA,
30 August 2013. Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/Add.4.
Chivian, E. and Bernstein, A. (Eds.). (2008). Sustaining life:
How human health depends on biodiversity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., & Kenter, J.
O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary
techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and
ecosystem services to people in countries with developing
economies. Ecological Economics, 83, 67–78.
Corvalan, C., Hales, S., & McMichael, A. J. (2005). Ecosystems
and human well-being: health synthesis. World health
organization.

Costanza, R., Wilson, M. A., Troy, A., Voinov, A., Liu, S., &
D’Agostino, J. (2006). The value of New Jersey’s ecosystem
services and natural capital.
De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Van Cauwenberghe, E., Spittaels, H.,
Oppert, J. M., Rostami, C., Brug, J., et al. (2011). School.
based interventions promoting both physical activity and
healthy eating in Europe: a systematic review within the
HOPE project. Obesity Reviews, 12(3), 205–216.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M., &
Larigauderie, A. (2015a). A Rosetta Stone for nature’s beneﬁts
to people. PLoS biology, 13(1).
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M.,
Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Ariko, S., Baldi,
A. Bartuska, A., et al. (2015b). The IPBES Conceptual
Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
Dora, C., Haines, A., Balbus, J., Fletcher, E., Adair-Rohani, H.,
Alabaster, G., Hossain, R., de Odnis, M. Branca, F. & Neira,
M. (2014). Indicators linking health and sustainability in the
post-2015 development agenda. The Lancet.
Duraiappah, A.K., Asah, S.T., Brondizio, E.S., Kosoy, N.,
O’Farrell, P.J., Prieur-Richard, A-H., Subramanian, S.M., &
Tacheuchi, K. (2014). Managing the Mismatches to Provide
Ecosystem Services for Human Well-being: A Conceptual
Framework for Understanding the New Commons. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7: 94–100.
French J., Blair-Stevens C., McVey, D., & Merritt, R. (2009).
Social marketing and public health: Theory and practice.
Oxford University Press, USA.
Freudenberg, N., Franzosa, E., Chisholm, J., & Libman, K.
(2015). New Approaches for Moving Upstream How State
and Local Health Departments Can Transform Practice to
Reduce Health Inequalities. Health Education & Behavior, 42(1
suppl), 46S-56S.
Freya A., Edwards-Jones, G., & Jones, J. P. (2010).
Conservation and human behaviour: lessons from social
psychology. Wildlife Research, 37(8), 658–667.
Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D., Smith, D. C., & van Putten, I. E.
(2011). Human behaviour: the key source of uncertainty in
ﬁsheries management. Fish and Fisheries, 12(1), 2–17.
Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the outcomes of
citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410.
Gielen, Green L. W. (2015). The impact of policy,
environmental, and educational interventions: A synthesis
of the evidence from two public health success stories. Health
Education & Behavior, 42(Suppl. 1), 20S-34S.
Gimona, A., & van der Horst, D. (2007). Mapping hotspots
of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland
afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecology, 22(8),
1255–1264.
Glanz, K., & Bishop, D. B. (2010). The role of behavioral
science theory in development and implementation of
public health interventions. Annual review of public health,
31, 399–418.

342 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Golden S. D., Earp J. A. (2012). Social ecological approaches
to individuals and their contexts: Twenty years of health
education & behavior health promotion interventions. Health
Education & Behavior, 39,
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Muradian, R. (2015). In markets we
trust? Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments
in ecosystem services governance. Ecological Economics.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., Braat,
L., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., et al. (2014). State-ofthe-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services.
European Commission, EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable, 4.
Haines, A., Alleyne, G., Kickbusch, I., & Dora, C. (2012).
From the Earth Summit to Rio+ 20: integration of health
and sustainable development. The Lancet, 379(9832),
2189–2197.
Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change:
Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental
behaviour change.” Journal of Consumer Culture 11.1: 79–99.
Horwitz, P., Morrison, K., Parkes, M., Patz, J., Zinsstag, J.
(2012). Integrating health, sustainability and ecosystems
in the post-2015 Development Agenda. Think Piece for
Health in the Post-2015 Development Agenda.http://www.
worldwewant2015.org/health. Accessed June 5, 2014.
Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Pataki, G., Martín-López, B.,
& Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2014). Non-monetary techniques
for the valuation of ecosystem services. In OpenNESS
Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement No. 308428.
Khun, S., & Manderson, L. (2007). Community and schoolbased health education for dengue control in rural Cambodia:
a process evaluation. PLoS neglected tropical diseases 1(3), e143.
Kickbusch, I., Brindley, C. (2013). Health in the Post-2015
Development Agenda. An Analysis of the UN-led thematic
consultations, High-Level Panel report and sustainable
development debate in the context of health. Geneva: World
Health Organization.

Lewis, D., Bell, S. D., Fay, J., Bothi, K. L., Gatere, L., Kabila,
M., et al. (2011). Community Markets for Conservation
(COMACO) links biodiversity conservation with sustainable
improvements in livelihoods and food production. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13957–13962.
Lieberman, L., Golden, S. D., & Earp, J. A. L. (2013). Structural
Approaches to Health Promotion What Do We Need to Know
About Policy and Environmental Change? Health Education &
Behavior, 40(5), 520–525.
Lomazzi, M., Borisch, B., & Laaser, U. (2014). The Millennium
Development Goals: experiences, achievements and what’s
next. Global health action, 7.
Lucas, P. L., Kok, M. T., Nilsson, M., & Alkemade, R. (2013).
Integrating Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Post2015 Development Agenda: Goal Structure, Target Areas and
Means of Implementation. Sustainability, 6(1), 193–216.
Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., & Taylor, S.
(2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through
action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet,
372(9650), 1661–1669.
MacDonald, K. I., & Corson, C. (2012). ‘TEEB Begins Now’:
a virtual moment in the production of Natural Capital.
Development and Change, 43(1), 159–184.
McKenzie-Mohr D., Schultz P.W., Kotler P. & Lee N.R. (2011)
Social marketing to protect the environment: What works. Sage
Publications, Incorporated.
McMichael, A. J. (2013). Globalization, climate change, and
human health. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(14),
1335–1343.
Moon, K., and Cocklin, C. (2011). Participation in biodiversity
conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian
landholders. Journal of Rural Studies 27:331–342.

Lee, N. R., & Kotler, P. (2011). Social marketing: Inﬂuencing
behaviors for good. Sage.

Murray, C. J., Vos, T., Lozano, R., Naghavi, M., Flaxman, A.
D., Michaud, C., et al. (2012). Disability-adjusted life years
(DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–
2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859), 2197–2223.

Kuhnlein, H. V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D., & Burlingame,
B. (2013). Indigenous peoples’ food systems and well-being:
interventions and policies for healthy communities. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Myers, S. S., Gaﬃkin, L., Golden, C. D., Ostfeld, R. S., Redford,
K. H., Ricketts, T. H., et al. (2013). Human health impacts of
ecosystem alteration. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 110(47), 18753–18760.

Langlois E.V., Campbell, K., Prieur-Richard, A.H, Karesh,
W.B., Daszak, P. (2012). Towards a better integration of global
health and biodiversity in the new sustainable development
goals beyond Rio +20. EcoHealth. 2012;9(4):381–385. doi:
10.1007/s10393–012–0800–8.

Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H.,
Cameron, D., et al. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem
services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production,
and tradeoﬀs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 7(1), 4–11.

Leadley, P.W., Krug, C.B., Alkemade, R., Pereira, H.M., Sumaila
U.R., Walpole, M., Marques, A., Newbold, T., Teh, L.S.L, van
Kolck, J., Bellard, C., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R. and Mumby,
P.J. (2014): Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets:
An Assessment of Biodiversity Trends, Policy Scenarios and
Key Actions. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada. Technical Series 78, 500 pages.

Netto, G., Bhopal, R., Lederle, N., Khatoon, J., & Jackson,
A. (2010). How can health promotion interventions be
adapted for minority ethnic communities? Five principles
for guiding the development of behavioural interventions.
Health Promotion International, daq012.
Newson, R. S., Lion, R., Crawford, R., Curtis, V., Elmadfa, I.,
et al. (2013). Behaviour change for better health: nutrition,
hygeine and sustainability. BMC Public Health 13(Suppl 1): S1.

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health 343

Nunes, P. A., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2001). Economic
valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?. Ecological
economics, 39(2), 203–222.
Open Working Group (OWG). (2013). “TST Issues Brief:
Biodiversity”. Technical Support Team Issues Briefs,
Available at: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.
php?menu=1528
Panel, UN High Level. (2013). A new global partnership:
Eradicate poverty and transform economies through
sustainable development. Final Report of the UN High-Level
Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development
Agenda, 30.
Panter-Brick, C., Clarke, S. E., Lomas, H., Pinder, M., &
Lindsay, S. W. (2006). Culturally compelling strategies for
behaviour change: a social ecology model and case study
in malaria prevention. Social science & medicine, 62(11),
2810–2825.
PBL. (2010). Rethinking global biodiversity strategies. PBL
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven/
The Hague, the Netherlands, 500197001.
PEDRR, (2013). PEDRR Input into Post-2015 Global
Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction. PEDRR Secretariat,
Geneva. Published online, available at: http://www.unep.org/
disastersandconﬂicts/Portals/155/dnc/docs/GlobalPlatform/
Framework.pdf
Pelletier, N., Maas, R., Goralczyk, M., & Wolf, M. A.
(2014). Conceptual basis for development of the European
Sustainability Footprint. Environmental Development, 9,
12–23.
Pons-Vigués, M., Diez, È., Morrison, J., Salas-Nicás, S.,
Hoﬀmann, R., Burstrom, et al. (2014). Social and health
policies or interventions to tackle health inequalities in
European cities: a scoping review. BMC public health, 14(1),
198.
Pretty, J., O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). People,
livelihoods and collective action in biodiversity management,
pp. 61–86. In O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (Eds.)
Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities: protecting
beyond the protected. Cambridge University Press.
Raks, T. (2014). Adaptation for Secured Human Settlement
Bamboo Fences for Mangrove Restoration, Tambon Klong
Prasong, Amphur Muang, Krabi Province. Raks Thai
Foundation.
Romanelli, C., Corvalan, C., Cooper, H. D., Manga, L., Maiero,
M., & Campbell-Lendrum, D. (2014b). From Manaus to
Maputo: Toward a Public Health and Biodiversity Framework.
EcoHealth, 11(3), 292–299.
Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals
to sustainable development goals. The Lancet, 379(9832),
2206–2211.
Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015).
Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem
services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities
to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem
Services, 12, 1–15.

Shin A., Surkan P. J., Coutinho A., Suratkar S. R., Campbell
R. K., Rowan M., et al. (2015). Impact of Baltimore Healthy
Eating Zones: An environmental intervention to improve diet
among African American youth. Health Education & Behavior,
42 (Suppl. 1), 97S-105S.
Smith, J., & Taylor, E. M. (2013). MDGs and NTDs: Reshaping
the Global Health Agenda. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 7(12).
Sunderlin, W. D. (2006). Poverty alleviation through
community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: An
assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics,
8(4), 386–396.
Talbot, L., & Verrinder, G. (2009). Promoting health: the
primary health care approach. Elsevier Australia.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. (2010).
Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of
the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.
Malta: Progress Press.
Trickett, E. J., Beehler, S., Deutsch, C., Green, L. W., Hawe,
P., McLeroy, K., et al. (2011). Advancing the science of
community-level interventions. American journal of public
health, 101(8), 1410–1419.
United Nations Development Group (UNDG). (2013).
The global conversation begins: Emerging views for a New
Development Agenda. 20 March 2013. Retrieved from:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/
mdg/global-conversation-begins/
United Nations, (2012). Rio+20 The future we want: outcome
document adopted at Rio+20. Available from http://www.
un.org/en/Sustainablefuture
Vaughan P.W., Encalada H. R. R., Torres S. C., & Campos,
B. (2013). Impact of the “My Community” Communications
Intervention in Loja Province Ecuador on Changing
Human Behaviors related to Surface Water Contamination.
Conservation Evidence, 10: 53–56.
Verissimo, D. (2013). Inﬂuencing human behaviour: an
underutilised tool for biodiversity management. Conservation
Evidence, 29–31.
Wakeﬁeld, M.A., Loken, B., and Hornick, R. C. (2010). Use
of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet
376:1261–71.
Waylen, K. A., Fischer, A., McGowan, P. J. K., Thirgood, S.
J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The eﬀect of local cultural
context on community-based conservation interventions:
evaluating ecological, economic, attitudinal and behavioural
outcomes. CEE review 09–019 (SR80). Collaboration for
Environmental Evidence: www.environmentalevidence.org/
SR80.html
WHO. (2012). Our Planet, Our Health, Our Future.
Human Health and the Rio Conventions. Discussion paper.
Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/
globalchange/publications/reports/health_rioconventions.pdf.
WHO. (2008). Report to the WHO Commission on Social
Determinants of Health from the Knowledge Network on
Urban Settings: Our cities, our health, our future: Acting
on social determinants of health equity in urban settings.
Kobe, Japan: World Health Organization Centre for Health
Development.

344 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
World Trade Centre
413 St. Jacques Street, Suite 800
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9
Phone: 1 (514) 288 2220
Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588
E-mail: secretariat@cbd.int
Website: http://www.cbd.int

Department of Public Health, Environmental
and Social Determinants of Health (PHE)
World Health Organization (WHO)
Avenue Appia 20 – CH-1211 Geneva 27 – Switzerland
www.who.int/phe/en/
ISBN 978 92 4 150853 7