Antoinette Van de Water, Marion E. Garaï, Matthew M. Burnett, Michelle D. Henley, Enrico Di Minin, Jarryd P. Streicher, Lucy A. Bates, Rob Slotow
{"title":"在大象保护中纳入 \"共同福祉 \"方法:评估管理干预措施的后果","authors":"Antoinette Van de Water, Marion E. Garaï, Matthew M. Burnett, Michelle D. Henley, Enrico Di Minin, Jarryd P. Streicher, Lucy A. Bates, Rob Slotow","doi":"10.5751/es-15193-290315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Innovative conservation approaches are urgently needed to balance biodiversity conservation with human development. Safeguarding elephant populations often involves active management, leading to direct intentional, direct unintentional, and indirect consequences for animals, people, and ecosystems. Drawing from One Health and One Welfare principles, our study introduces a multicriteria framework for developing conservation strategies that enhance well-being across dimensions. This approach establishes priorities, acceptability zones, and One Well-being scores that guide decision making toward optimal outcomes. We applied our One Well-being framework to evaluate 12 elephant management interventions currently or historically used in South Africa. Examining data from 3306 instances of these interventions, including on-the-ground data, we assessed their relative impact on environmental, human, and animal well-being. Our analysis identified 250 consequences of these interventions, categorized as 58 direct intentional, 127 direct unintentional, and 65 indirect. Although most direct intentional consequences were beneficial (93.4%), the direct unintentional and indirect consequences were predominantly harmful (96.9% and 75.4%, respectively). Although most interventions improved environmental well-being, their consequences for animal and human well-being were less positive. This highlights a conflict among the three well-being dimensions, underscoring the importance of incorporating human and animal well-being into elephant management strategies. Recognizing the interconnected nature of these dimensions and aiming for multiple, mutually reinforcing gains is imperative. This iterative process helps address social-ecological vulnerabilities and risks while advocating for ethical conservation practices, fostering multidisciplinary collaboration, and garnering broader support for conservation efforts. Our approach aligns with global goals for sustainable and equitable wildlife management outcomes.</p>\n<p>The post Integrating a “One Well-being” approach in elephant conservation: evaluating consequences of management interventions first appeared on Ecology & Society.</p>","PeriodicalId":51028,"journal":{"name":"Ecology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating a “One Well-being” approach in elephant conservation: evaluating consequences of management interventions\",\"authors\":\"Antoinette Van de Water, Marion E. Garaï, Matthew M. Burnett, Michelle D. Henley, Enrico Di Minin, Jarryd P. Streicher, Lucy A. Bates, Rob Slotow\",\"doi\":\"10.5751/es-15193-290315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Innovative conservation approaches are urgently needed to balance biodiversity conservation with human development. Safeguarding elephant populations often involves active management, leading to direct intentional, direct unintentional, and indirect consequences for animals, people, and ecosystems. Drawing from One Health and One Welfare principles, our study introduces a multicriteria framework for developing conservation strategies that enhance well-being across dimensions. This approach establishes priorities, acceptability zones, and One Well-being scores that guide decision making toward optimal outcomes. We applied our One Well-being framework to evaluate 12 elephant management interventions currently or historically used in South Africa. Examining data from 3306 instances of these interventions, including on-the-ground data, we assessed their relative impact on environmental, human, and animal well-being. Our analysis identified 250 consequences of these interventions, categorized as 58 direct intentional, 127 direct unintentional, and 65 indirect. Although most direct intentional consequences were beneficial (93.4%), the direct unintentional and indirect consequences were predominantly harmful (96.9% and 75.4%, respectively). Although most interventions improved environmental well-being, their consequences for animal and human well-being were less positive. This highlights a conflict among the three well-being dimensions, underscoring the importance of incorporating human and animal well-being into elephant management strategies. Recognizing the interconnected nature of these dimensions and aiming for multiple, mutually reinforcing gains is imperative. This iterative process helps address social-ecological vulnerabilities and risks while advocating for ethical conservation practices, fostering multidisciplinary collaboration, and garnering broader support for conservation efforts. Our approach aligns with global goals for sustainable and equitable wildlife management outcomes.</p>\\n<p>The post Integrating a “One Well-being” approach in elephant conservation: evaluating consequences of management interventions first appeared on Ecology & Society.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology and Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-15193-290315\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-15193-290315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Integrating a “One Well-being” approach in elephant conservation: evaluating consequences of management interventions
Innovative conservation approaches are urgently needed to balance biodiversity conservation with human development. Safeguarding elephant populations often involves active management, leading to direct intentional, direct unintentional, and indirect consequences for animals, people, and ecosystems. Drawing from One Health and One Welfare principles, our study introduces a multicriteria framework for developing conservation strategies that enhance well-being across dimensions. This approach establishes priorities, acceptability zones, and One Well-being scores that guide decision making toward optimal outcomes. We applied our One Well-being framework to evaluate 12 elephant management interventions currently or historically used in South Africa. Examining data from 3306 instances of these interventions, including on-the-ground data, we assessed their relative impact on environmental, human, and animal well-being. Our analysis identified 250 consequences of these interventions, categorized as 58 direct intentional, 127 direct unintentional, and 65 indirect. Although most direct intentional consequences were beneficial (93.4%), the direct unintentional and indirect consequences were predominantly harmful (96.9% and 75.4%, respectively). Although most interventions improved environmental well-being, their consequences for animal and human well-being were less positive. This highlights a conflict among the three well-being dimensions, underscoring the importance of incorporating human and animal well-being into elephant management strategies. Recognizing the interconnected nature of these dimensions and aiming for multiple, mutually reinforcing gains is imperative. This iterative process helps address social-ecological vulnerabilities and risks while advocating for ethical conservation practices, fostering multidisciplinary collaboration, and garnering broader support for conservation efforts. Our approach aligns with global goals for sustainable and equitable wildlife management outcomes.
The post Integrating a “One Well-being” approach in elephant conservation: evaluating consequences of management interventions first appeared on Ecology & Society.
期刊介绍:
Ecology and Society is an electronic, peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of current research. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled on the Internet. Software developed for the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review, facilitates a double-blind peer review process, and allows authors and editors to follow the progress of peer review on the Internet. As articles are accepted, they are published in an "Issue in Progress." At four month intervals the Issue-in-Progress is declared a New Issue, and subscribers receive the Table of Contents of the issue via email. Our turn-around time (submission to publication) averages around 350 days.
We encourage publication of special features. Special features are comprised of a set of manuscripts that address a single theme, and include an introductory and summary manuscript. The individual contributions are published in regular issues, and the special feature manuscripts are linked through a table of contents and announced on the journal''s main page.
The journal seeks papers that are novel, integrative and written in a way that is accessible to a wide audience that includes an array of disciplines from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities concerned with the relationship between society and the life-supporting ecosystems on which human wellbeing ultimately depends.