Search results

Understanding the evidence base and identifying threats to the marine environment is critical to ensure cost-effective management and to identify priorities for future research. The United Kingdom (UK) government is responsible for approximately 2% of the world's oceans, most of which belongs to its 14 Overseas Territories (UKOTs). Containing biodiversity of global significance, and far in excess of the UK mainland's domestic species, there has recently been a strong desire from many of the UKOTs, the UK Government, and NGOs to improve marine management in these places. Implementing evidence-based marine policy is, however, challenged by the disparate nature of scientific research in the UKOTs and knowledge gaps about the threats they face. Here, we address these issues by systematically searching for scientific literature which has examined UKOT marine biodiversity and by exploring publicly available spatial threat data. We find that UKOT marine biodiversity has received consistent, but largely low, levels of scientific interest, and there is considerable geographical and subject bias in research effort. Of particular concern is the lack of research focus on management or threats to biodiversity. The extent and intensity of threats vary amongst and within the UKOTs but unsurprisingly, climate change associated threats affect them all and direct human stressors are more prevalent in those with higher human populations. To meet global goals for effective conservation and management, there is an urgent need for additional and continued investment in research and management in the Overseas Territories, particularly those that have been of lesser focus.

The rate of biological invasions has increased dramatically over recent centuries. Alien invasive vertebrates have significant adverse effects on biodiversity, and island fauna are especially susceptible. Human-induced environmental change is likely to exacerbate these negative impacts of alien invasive species. However, invasion biology has advanced considerably over the last two decades, with improvement in understanding of the processes of establishment and spread. New developments in spatial modelling have elucidated the way in which behavioural processes at the individual level can drive population-level patterns such as spread. Combined with new genetic insights into the process of invasion, these advances may assist in the development of novel, better-targeted management strategies that provide new options in how to deal with the threat posed by invasive species. Decisions about whether to and how we should intervene are questions for all sectors of society, but research on the social and cultural impacts of invasive species is largely lacking. There are many opportunities for enhancing the social dimensions of invasive species research, and integrated assessments of the social, economic and environmental impacts of species provide one potential avenue. As part of this, there is also a need to increase stakeholder participation in the decision-making process regarding alien invasive species. These more holistic approaches are essential if we are to reduce the impact of alien invasive species to within acceptable limits in the face of rapid environmental change.

Understanding the evidence base and identifying threats to the marine environment is critical to ensure cost-effective management and to identify priorities for future research. The United Kingdom (UK) government is responsible for approximately 2% of the world's oceans, most of which belongs to its 14 Overseas Territories (UKOTs). Containing biodiversity of global significance, and far in excess of the UK mainland's domestic species, there has recently been a strong desire from many of the UKOTs, the UK Government, and NGOs to improve marine management in these places. Implementing evidence-based marine policy is, however, challenged by the disparate nature of scientific research in the UKOTs and knowledge gaps about the threats they face. Here, we address these issues by systematically searching for scientific literature which has examined UKOT marine biodiversity and by exploring publicly available spatial threat data. We find that UKOT marine biodiversity has received consistent, but largely low, levels of scientific interest, and there is considerable geographical and subject bias in research effort. Of particular concern is the lack of research focus on management or threats to biodiversity. The extent and intensity of threats vary amongst and within the UKOTs but unsurprisingly, climate change associated threats affect them all and direct human stressors are more prevalent in those with higher human populations. To meet global goals for effective conservation and management, there is an urgent need for additional and continued investment in research and management in the Overseas Territories, particularly those that have been of lesser focus.

International audience ; There is growing evidence of the interrelationships between ecosystems and public health. This creates opportunities for the development of cross-sectoral policies and interventions that provide dual benefits to public health and to the natural environment. These benefits are increasingly articulated in strategy documents at national and regional level, yet implementation of integrative policies on the ground remains limited and fragmented. Here, we use a workshop approach to identify some features of this evidence-implementation gap based on policy and practice within a number of western European countries. The driving forces behind some recent moves towards more integrative policy development and implementation show important differences between countries, reflecting the non-linear and complex nature of the policy-making process. We use these case studies to illustrate some of the key barriers to greater inte-grative policy development identified in the policy analysis literature. Specific barriers we identify include: institutional barriers; differing time perspectives in public health and ecosystem management; contrasting historical development of public health and natural environment disciplinary policy agendas; an incomplete evidence base relating investment in the natural environment to benefits for public health; a lack of appropriate outcome measures including benefit-cost trade-offs; and finally a lack of integra-tive policy frameworks across the health and natural environment sectors. We also identify opportunities for greater policy integration and examples of good practice from different countries. However, we note there is no single mechanism that will deliver integrative policy for healthier people and ecosystems in all countries and situations. National governments, national public agencies, local governments, research institutions, and professional bodies all share a responsibility to identify and seize opportunities for influencing policy change, whether incremental or ...

International audience ; There is growing evidence of the interrelationships between ecosystems and public health. This creates opportunities for the development of cross-sectoral policies and interventions that provide dual benefits to public health and to the natural environment. These benefits are increasingly articulated in strategy documents at national and regional level, yet implementation of integrative policies on the ground remains limited and fragmented. Here, we use a workshop approach to identify some features of this evidence-implementation gap based on policy and practice within a number of western European countries. The driving forces behind some recent moves towards more integrative policy development and implementation show important differences between countries, reflecting the non-linear and complex nature of the policy-making process. We use these case studies to illustrate some of the key barriers to greater inte-grative policy development identified in the policy analysis literature. Specific barriers we identify include: institutional barriers; differing time perspectives in public health and ecosystem management; contrasting historical development of public health and natural environment disciplinary policy agendas; an incomplete evidence base relating investment in the natural environment to benefits for public health; a lack of appropriate outcome measures including benefit-cost trade-offs; and finally a lack of integra-tive policy frameworks across the health and natural environment sectors. We also identify opportunities for greater policy integration and examples of good practice from different countries. However, we note there is no single mechanism that will deliver integrative policy for healthier people and ecosystems in all countries and situations. National governments, national public agencies, local governments, research institutions, and professional bodies all share a responsibility to identify and seize opportunities for influencing policy change, whether incremental or ...

International audience ; There is growing evidence of the interrelationships between ecosystems and public health. This creates opportunities for the development of cross-sectoral policies and interventions that provide dual benefits to public health and to the natural environment. These benefits are increasingly articulated in strategy documents at national and regional level, yet implementation of integrative policies on the ground remains limited and fragmented. Here, we use a workshop approach to identify some features of this evidence-implementation gap based on policy and practice within a number of western European countries. The driving forces behind some recent moves towards more integrative policy development and implementation show important differences between countries, reflecting the non-linear and complex nature of the policy-making process. We use these case studies to illustrate some of the key barriers to greater inte-grative policy development identified in the policy analysis literature. Specific barriers we identify include: institutional barriers; differing time perspectives in public health and ecosystem management; contrasting historical development of public health and natural environment disciplinary policy agendas; an incomplete evidence base relating investment in the natural environment to benefits for public health; a lack of appropriate outcome measures including benefit-cost trade-offs; and finally a lack of integra-tive policy frameworks across the health and natural environment sectors. We also identify opportunities for greater policy integration and examples of good practice from different countries. However, we note there is no single mechanism that will deliver integrative policy for healthier people and ecosystems in all countries and situations. National governments, national public agencies, local governments, research institutions, and professional bodies all share a responsibility to identify and seize opportunities for influencing policy change, whether incremental or ...

There is growing evidence of the inter‐relationships between ecosystems and public health. This creates opportunities for the development of cross‐sectoral policies and interventions that provide dual benefits to public health and to the natural environment. These benefits are increasingly articulated in strategy documents at national and regional level, yet implementation of integrative policies on the ground remains limited and fragmented. Here, we use a workshop approach to identify some features of this evidence–implementation gap based on policy and practice within a number of western European countries. The driving forces behind some recent moves towards more integrative policy development and implementation show important differences between countries, reflecting the non‐linear and complex nature of the policy‐making process. We use these case studies to illustrate some of the key barriers to greater integrative policy development identified in the policy analysis literature. Specific barriers we identify include: institutional barriers; differing time perspectives in public health and ecosystem management; contrasting historical development of public health and natural environment disciplinary policy agendas; an incomplete evidence base relating investment in the natural environment to benefits for public health; a lack of appropriate outcome measures including benefit–cost trade‐offs; and finally a lack of integrative policy frameworks across the health and natural environment sectors. We also identify opportunities for greater policy integration and examples of good practice from different countries. However, we note there is no single mechanism that will deliver integrative policy for healthier people and ecosystems in all countries and situations. National governments, national public agencies, local governments, research institutions, and professional bodies all share a responsibility to identify and seize opportunities for influencing policy change, whether incremental or abrupt, to ensure that ecosystems and the health of society are managed so that the interests of future generations, as well as present generations, can be protected.

There is growing evidence of the inter‐relationships between ecosystems and public health. This creates opportunities for the development of cross‐sectoral policies and interventions that provide dual benefits to public health and to the natural environment. These benefits are increasingly articulated in strategy documents at national and regional level, yet implementation of integrative policies on the ground remains limited and fragmented. Here, we use a workshop approach to identify some features of this evidence–implementation gap based on policy and practice within a number of western European countries. The driving forces behind some recent moves towards more integrative policy development and implementation show important differences between countries, reflecting the non‐linear and complex nature of the policy‐making process. We use these case studies to illustrate some of the key barriers to greater integrative policy development identified in the policy analysis literature. Specific barriers we identify include: institutional barriers; differing time perspectives in public health and ecosystem management; contrasting historical development of public health and natural environment disciplinary policy agendas; an incomplete evidence base relating investment in the natural environment to benefits for public health; a lack of appropriate outcome measures including benefit–cost trade‐offs; and finally a lack of integrative policy frameworks across the health and natural environment sectors. We also identify opportunities for greater policy integration and examples of good practice from different countries. However, we note there is no single mechanism that will deliver integrative policy for healthier people and ecosystems in all countries and situations. National governments, national public agencies, local governments, research institutions, and professional bodies all share a responsibility to identify and seize opportunities for influencing policy change, whether incremental or abrupt, to ensure that ecosystems and the health of society are managed so that the interests of future generations, as well as present generations, can be protected.

There is growing evidence of the inter‐relationships between ecosystems and public health. This creates opportunities for the development of cross‐sectoral policies and interventions that provide dual benefits to public health and to the natural environment. These benefits are increasingly articulated in strategy documents at national and regional level, yet implementation of integrative policies on the ground remains limited and fragmented. Here, we use a workshop approach to identify some features of this evidence–implementation gap based on policy and practice within a number of western European countries. The driving forces behind some recent moves towards more integrative policy development and implementation show important differences between countries, reflecting the non‐linear and complex nature of the policy‐making process. We use these case studies to illustrate some of the key barriers to greater integrative policy development identified in the policy analysis literature. Specific barriers we identify include: institutional barriers; differing time perspectives in public health and ecosystem management; contrasting historical development of public health and natural environment disciplinary policy agendas; an incomplete evidence base relating investment in the natural environment to benefits for public health; a lack of appropriate outcome measures including benefit–cost trade‐offs; and finally a lack of integrative policy frameworks across the health and natural environment sectors. We also identify opportunities for greater policy integration and examples of good practice from different countries. However, we note there is no single mechanism that will deliver integrative policy for healthier people and ecosystems in all countries and situations. National governments, national public agencies, local governments, research institutions, and professional bodies all share a responsibility to identify and seize opportunities for influencing policy change, whether incremental or abrupt, to ensure that ecosystems and the health of society are managed so that the interests of future generations, as well as present generations, can be protected.