Pathogens, disease, and the social-ecological resilience of protected areas

Abstract

ABSTRACT. It is extremely important for biodiversity conservation that protected areas are resilient to a range of potential future perturbations. One of the least studied influences on protected area resilience is that of disease. We argue that wildlife disease (1) is a social-ecological problem that must be approached from an interdisciplinary perspective; (2) has the potential to lead to changes in the identity of protected areas, possibly transforming them; and (3) interacts with conservation both directly (via impacts on wild animals, livestock, and people) and indirectly (via the public, conservation management, and veterinary responses). We use southern African protected areas as a case study to test a framework for exploring the connections between conservation, endemic disease, and socialecological resilience. We first define a set of criteria for the social-ecological identity of protected areas. We then use these criteria to explore the potential impacts of selected diseases (foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, malaria, rabies, rift valley fever, trypanosomiasis, and canine distemper) on protected area resilience. Although endemic diseases may have a number of direct impacts on both wild animals and domestic animals and people, the indirect pathways by which diseases influence social-ecological resilience also emerge as potentially important. The majority of endemic pathogens found in protected areas do not kill large numbers of wild animals or infect many people, and may even play valuable ecological roles; but occasional disease outbreaks and mortalities can have a large impact on public perceptions and disease management, potentially making protected areas unviable in one or more of their stated aims. Neighboring landowners also have a significant impact on park management decisions. The indirect effects triggered by disease in the human social and economic components of protected areas and surrounding landscapes may ultimately have a greater influence on protected area resilience than the direct ecological perturbations caused by disease.

Domestic mammals facilitate tick-borne pathogen transmission networks in South African wildlife

“…Limiting contacts between wild and domestic mammals will decrease the risk of ticks and tickborne disease transmission. Adequate management measures to prevent disease spread in the wildlifedomestic animal interface are crucial, as pathogen spill-over from protected areas may have sociopolitical implications that represents a risk to wildlife conservation (Daszak et al 2001;De Vos et al 2016). Small and isolated wild animal populations may be particularly vulnerable to disease, especially if they live in proximity to domestic animals (Daszak et al 2001).…”

“…In southern Africa, the wildlife trade and wildlife translocations into conservation and hunting areas near livestock ranches and rural subsistence communities further increase such contacts, in addition to causing stress and undermining the immune systems of wild animals (Karesh et al 2005;Penzhorn 2006;Chomel et al 2007). As a result, the increasing anthropogenic alteration of natural environments offers numerous opportunities for generalist pathogens and cross-species pathogen transmission, with negative implications for wildlife, protected areas, and human health (Dobson & Foufopoulos 2001;Altizer et al 2003;De Vos et al 2016).…”

Tsetse Invasion as an Emerging Threat to Socioecological Resilience of Pastoral Communities in Karamoja, Uganda

“…These dramatic changes have subsequently led to a loss of resilience (social and ecological) that has traditionally underpinned the adaptive capacity within dryland environments and societies [17,34]. This effect arises because the socioecological system connections within the drylands include the intricate interactions among the environment, vectors, their relationships with humans and the transmission of bacteria, viruses or protozoa [35,36]. Consequently, numerous studies on tsetse distribution, prevalence and trypanosome infection risk have been conducted [3,30].…”

The good, the bad and the ugly: framing debates on nature in a One Health community

“…Such an imbalance could further hamper opportunities for funding research and public health actions operating under a framing that is distinct from that of the call. Moreover, oversimplified communication about the link between wildlife and disease outbreaks can impact protected areas through, e.g., altered visitor or community perception or through invasive management interventions like fencing or spraying (De Vos et al 2016). Wildlife culling has also been a recurrent strategy to control diseases (e.g., Caley et al 1999;Jenkins et al 2010;ANSES 2015), raising questions regarding ethics and conservation, and regarding effectiveness and sustainability (Harrison et al 2010;Treanor 2013;Lederman 2016).…”