Abstract
Several recent initiatives such as Planetary Health, EcoHealth and One Health claim that human health depends on flourishing natural ecosystems. However, little has been said about the operational and implementation challenges of health-oriented conservation actions on the ground. We contend that ecological–epidemiological research must be complemented by a form of implementation science that examines: (i) the links between specific conservation actions and the resulting ecological changes, and (ii) how this ecological change impacts human health and well-being, when human behaviours are considered. Drawing on the policy evaluation tradition in public economics, first, we present three examples of recent social science research on conservation interventions that affect human health. These examples are from low- and middle-income countries in the tropics and subtropics. Second, drawing on these examples, we present three propositions related to impact evaluation and non-market valuation that can help guide future multidisciplinary research on conservation and human health. Research guided by these propositions will allow stakeholders to determine how ecosystem-mediated strategies for health promotion compare with more conventional biomedical prevention and treatment strategies for safeguarding health.This article is part of the themed issue ‘Conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease: scientific evidence and policy implications’.
Highlights
Does human health depend upon flourishing natural systems? A recent Lancet Commission discusses how environmental damage is hurting human health, especially for vulnerable sub-populations such as the poor, the socially disenfranchised, children and the elderly [1]
The scientific literature on conservation and health is too thin—and thinner still on socio-economic aspects of this problem—to provide either sufficient nuance or a comprehensive picture of policies for ecosystemmediated disease control [8]. Drawing on these examples, we present three propositions related to impact evaluation and non-market valuation that can help guide future research on conservation and human health. Research guided by these propositions will allow society to determine how ecosystem-mediated strategies for health promotion compare with more conventional biomedical treatments and cures for safeguarding health
This case illustrates that blanket statements about the health impacts of tropical forest conservation are too simplistic
Summary
Does human health depend upon flourishing natural systems? A recent Lancet Commission discusses how environmental damage is hurting human health, especially for vulnerable sub-populations such as the poor, the socially disenfranchised, children and the elderly [1]. The scientific literature on conservation and health is too thin—and thinner still on socio-economic aspects of this problem—to provide either sufficient nuance or a comprehensive picture of policies for ecosystemmediated disease control [8] Drawing on these examples, we present three propositions related to impact evaluation and non-market valuation that can help guide future research on conservation and human health. Research guided by these propositions will allow society to determine how ecosystem-mediated strategies for health promotion compare with more conventional biomedical treatments and cures for safeguarding health
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
