Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

How to identify win–win interventions that benefit human health and conservation

Abstract

To reach the Sustainable Development Goals, we may need to act on synergies between some targets while mediating trade-offs between other targets. But what, exactly, are synergies and trade-offs, and how are they related to other outcomes, such as ‘win–win’ solutions? Finding limited guidance in the existing literature, we developed an operational method for distinguishing win–wins from eight other possible dual outcomes (lose–lose, lose–neutral and so on). Using examples related to human health and conservation, we illustrate how interdisciplinary problem-solvers can use this framework to assess relationships among targets and compare multi-target interventions that affect people and nature.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: A framework for evaluating intervention outcomes and their associated values.
Fig. 2: ‘Sick care’ and ‘preventative care’ within coupled human and natural systems can each create neutral–neutral outcomes.
Fig. 3: Two complex systems where ecosystem and human health are connected.
Fig. 4: Multiple interventions can be compared on the basis of not only on their qualitative outcomes, but also on their effect sizes and cost-effectiveness.
Fig. 5: Planning and comparing interventions using theory-of-change diagrams.

References

  1. 1.

    A Guide to SDG Interactions: from Science to Implementation (International Council for Science, 2017); https://go.nature.com/3o5nOD3

  2. 2.

    IPBES Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

  3. 3.

    Schneider, F. et al. How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1593–1604 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. Sustainable development goal indicators: analyzing trade-offs and complementarities. World Dev. 122, 295–305 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W. & Kropp, J. P. A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5, 1169–1179 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B. & Mace, G. M. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 263–275 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Whitmee, S. et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 386, 1973–2028 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Naidoo, R. & Fisher, B. Reset Sustainable Development Goals for a pandemic world. Nature 583, 198–201 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nilsson, M. et al. Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1489–1503 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. & Maginnis, S. (eds) Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges (IUCN, 2016).

  11. 11.

    Allen, C., Metternicht, G. & Wiedmann, T. Prioritising SDG targets: assessing baselines, gaps and interlinkages. Sustain. Sci. 14, 421–438 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mayrhofer, J. P. & Gupta, J. The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 57, 22–30 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Le Blanc, D. Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015).

  14. 14.

    Sokolow, S. H. et al. Nearly 400 million people are at higher risk of schistosomiasis because dams block the migration of snail-eating river prawns. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160127 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Steinmann, P., Keiser, J., Bos, R., Tanner, M. & Utzinger, J. Schistosomiasis and water resources development: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimates of people at risk. Lancet Infect. Dis. 6, 411–425 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sokolow, S. H. et al. Global assessment of schistosomiasis control over the past century shows targeting the snail intermediate host works best. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 10, e0004794 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Martin, D. A. et al. Land-use history determines ecosystem services and conservation value in tropical agroforestry. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12740 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Medlock, J. M. et al. A review of the invasive mosquitoes in Europe: ecology, public health risks, and control options. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 12, 435–447 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    van Riper, C., van Riper, S. G., Goff, M. L. & Laird, M. The epizootiology and ecological significance of malaria in Hawaiian land birds. Ecol. Monogr. 56, 327–344 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Franklin, B. Protection of Towns from Fire. The Pennsylvania Gazette (4 February 1735).

  21. 21.

    Bauch, S. C., Birkenbach, A. M., Pattanayak, S. K. & Sills, E. O. Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7414–7419 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Herrera, D. et al. Upstream watershed condition predicts rural children’s health across 35 developing countries. Nat. Commun. 8, 811 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    McShane, T. O. et al. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144, 966–972 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lengeler, C. Insecticide-treated bed nets and curtains for preventing malaria. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000363.pub2 (2004).

  25. 25.

    Price, J., Richardson, M. & Lengeler, C. Insecticide-treated nets for preventing malaria. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000363.pub3 (2018).

  26. 26.

    Short, R., Gurung, R., Rowcliffe, M., Hill, N. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The use of mosquito nets in fisheries: a global perspective. PLoS ONE 13, e0191519 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Markandya, A. et al. Counting the cost of vulture decline—an appraisal of the human health and other benefits of vultures in India. Ecol. Econ. 67, 194–204 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Buechley, E. R. & Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. The avian scavenger crisis: looming extinctions, trophic cascades, and loss of critical ecosystem functions. Biol. Conserv. 198, 220–228 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gangoso, L. et al. Reinventing mutualism between humans and wild fauna: insights from vultures as ecosystem services providers. Conserv. Lett. 6, 172–179 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hampson, K. et al. Estimating the global burden of endemic canine rabies. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e0003709 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ogada, D. L., Torchin, M. E., Kinnaird, M. F. & Ezenwa, V. O. Effects of vulture declines on facultative scavengers and potential implications for mammalian disease transmission. Conserv. Biol. 26, 453–460 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Breuer, E., Lee, L., De Silva, M. & Lund, C. Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review. Implement. Sci. 11, 63 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Constructing Theories of Change for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Projects: A Guidance Document (Conservation International, 2013).

  34. 34.

    de Wit, L. A. et al. Estimating burdens of neglected tropical zoonotic diseases on islands with introduced mammals. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 96, 749–757 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Morand, S. et al. Global parasite and Rattus rodent invasions: the consequences for rodent-borne diseases. Integr. Zool. 10, 409–423 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Duron, Q., Shiels, A. B. & Vidal, E. Control of invasive rats on islands and priorities for future action. Conserv. Biol. 31, 761–771 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Vanderwerf, E. A. Importance of nest predation by alien rodents and avian poxvirus in conservation of Oahu elepaio. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 737–746 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Pender, R. J., Shiels, A. B., Bialic-Murphy, L. & Mosher, S. M. Large-scale rodent control reduces pre- and post-dispersal seed predation of the endangered Hawaiian lobeliad, Cyanea superba subsp. superba (Campanulaceae). Biol. Invasions 15, 213–223 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hoare, J. M. & Hare, K. M. The impact of brodifacoum on non-target wildlife: gaps in knowledge. N. Z. J. Ecol. 30, 157–167 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    DataBank (The World Bank, 2020); https://databank.worldbank.org/home.aspx

  41. 41.

    Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update (World Health Organization and UNICEF, 2012); https://go.nature.com/2HOJFOR

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Ecological Levers for Health working group was supported by the Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP). L.H.K. and I.J.J. were supported by NSF Graduate Research Fellowships (nos. DGE-114747 and 1656518). N.N. was supported by the Bing Fellowship in Honor of Paul Ehrlich and the Stanford Data Science Scholars program. A.J.P. was supported by a Queensland Government Accelerate Postdoctoral Research Fellowship and an ARC DECRA fellowship (DE190100710). C.L.W. was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (OCE-1829509), an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Sloan Research Fellowship, and a University of Washington Innovation Award. A.J.L. was supported by a James and Nancy Kelso Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship. A.J.M. was supported by a NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Biology (no. 1611767). G.A.D.L., A.J.P. and S.H.S. were partially supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01TW010286), the National Science Foundation (CNH1414102), and a GDP SEED grant from the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University. G.A.D.L. was also partially supported by NSF DEB no. 2011179. K.D.L. was supported by the Ecosystem Mission Area of the US Geological Survey. Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.R.H., K.D.L., S.H.S. and G.A.D.L. designed the framework with input from all authors; N.N. and S.R.H. created the figures with design input from all authors; S.R.H. led the writing, and all authors wrote and revised the drafts. All authors gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Skylar R. Hopkins.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Christopher Golden, Melissa Marselle and Kris Murray for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hopkins, S.R., Sokolow, S.H., Buck, J.C. et al. How to identify win–win interventions that benefit human health and conservation. Nat Sustain 4, 298–304 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00640-z

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing