PrepSense: Preparing for the Impact of Climate and Land-Use Changes on Environmentally Sensitive Diseases
Lead Research Organisation:
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
Abstract
Climate change is substantially impacting on human, animal and plant health. In the UK, this includes increasing risk for new and re-emerging diseases. Environmentally sensitive diseases (ESDs) have transmission stages that are affected and influenced by the environment for prolonged periods (e.g., vector-borne diseases, water-borne diseases, pathogenic fungi etc). In comparison to many directly transmitted diseases (e.g., human/avian influenza), ESDs are therefore particularly sensitive to climate change [1-3]. ESD impacts have already been linked to climate change [4], and these climate changes are robustly predicted to continue this century [5-6]. ESD risk is also shaped by other environmental factors, chief among them is land-use. While UK and international policies on climate change are critical to address long-term disease risk, land-use policy could have a significant and relatively fast-acting effect on national ESD risk [2,7].
Unfortunately, land-use policies designed to mitigate the long-term impacts of climate change may have un-intended effects on ESDs across human, animal and plant health. For example, water management policies designed for flood risk may provide ideal breeding habitats for mosquitoes and thus increase the risk of zoonotic mosquito-borne diseases. Conservation, reforestation and rewilding policies could increase the risk of crop plant diseases, whilst at the same time provide improved habitat for the UK deer species, which themselves are a key component for tick-borne pathogen transmission.
We lack a unified approach to preparedness for ESDs due to the complex ecology and the diversity of science and policy disciplines. Furthermore, many ESDs share common changing climate and land-use drivers [8]. Because of this commonality, we argue that ESD risk must be better integrated into land-use policy decision making. Here, we propose a holistic One Health approach to break down the siloed thinking to better prepare for these future threats [9-10].
PrepSense will bring together stakeholders, policy and decision-makers with social, economic, experimental and data scientists and modellers to enhance preparedness to selected priority ESD risks precipitated by climate change and changing land-use policies. To achieve this, we will conduct a rapid scoping review of relevant cross-sectoral policies, followed by an ecosystem mapping exercise to identify the key stakeholders at the climate change, land-use change and ESD interface. These stakeholders will then participate in a series of in-person and virtual workshops designed to enhance network building and address 5 research questions:
How is land-use and climate change influencing priority ESDs?
Which policy initiatives may increase or decrease ESD risks (either directly or indirectly) and what evidence is needed to demonstrate this?
How might stakeholders' requirements for evidence change as ESD risks emerge given impacts of land-use and climate change?
How can data and models best inform decision-making in different epidemiological scenarios to increase preparedness and reduce health impacts?
What novel solutions and integration are needed (e.g., surveillance, experiments, data and models) to meet these needs?
These questions will identify the shared, interconnected risks for priority EDSs across human, animal and plant health for better preparedness. We will identify common best and novel approaches for preparedness, as well as key common knowledge gaps that hamper preparedness. These will then be synthesised as a research agenda and roadmap to develop a unified One Health approach across these discipline areas, which will be distilled into a white paper and form the basis for our Phase 2 proposal.
Unfortunately, land-use policies designed to mitigate the long-term impacts of climate change may have un-intended effects on ESDs across human, animal and plant health. For example, water management policies designed for flood risk may provide ideal breeding habitats for mosquitoes and thus increase the risk of zoonotic mosquito-borne diseases. Conservation, reforestation and rewilding policies could increase the risk of crop plant diseases, whilst at the same time provide improved habitat for the UK deer species, which themselves are a key component for tick-borne pathogen transmission.
We lack a unified approach to preparedness for ESDs due to the complex ecology and the diversity of science and policy disciplines. Furthermore, many ESDs share common changing climate and land-use drivers [8]. Because of this commonality, we argue that ESD risk must be better integrated into land-use policy decision making. Here, we propose a holistic One Health approach to break down the siloed thinking to better prepare for these future threats [9-10].
PrepSense will bring together stakeholders, policy and decision-makers with social, economic, experimental and data scientists and modellers to enhance preparedness to selected priority ESD risks precipitated by climate change and changing land-use policies. To achieve this, we will conduct a rapid scoping review of relevant cross-sectoral policies, followed by an ecosystem mapping exercise to identify the key stakeholders at the climate change, land-use change and ESD interface. These stakeholders will then participate in a series of in-person and virtual workshops designed to enhance network building and address 5 research questions:
How is land-use and climate change influencing priority ESDs?
Which policy initiatives may increase or decrease ESD risks (either directly or indirectly) and what evidence is needed to demonstrate this?
How might stakeholders' requirements for evidence change as ESD risks emerge given impacts of land-use and climate change?
How can data and models best inform decision-making in different epidemiological scenarios to increase preparedness and reduce health impacts?
What novel solutions and integration are needed (e.g., surveillance, experiments, data and models) to meet these needs?
These questions will identify the shared, interconnected risks for priority EDSs across human, animal and plant health for better preparedness. We will identify common best and novel approaches for preparedness, as well as key common knowledge gaps that hamper preparedness. These will then be synthesised as a research agenda and roadmap to develop a unified One Health approach across these discipline areas, which will be distilled into a white paper and form the basis for our Phase 2 proposal.
| Description | PrepSense brought together stakeholders, policy and decision-makers with social, economic, experimental and data scientists and modellers to enhance preparedness to selected priority environmentally sensitive disease (ESD) risks precipitated by climate change and changing land-use policies. Using a rapid scoping review of relevant cross-sectoral policies combined with participatory workshops and questionnaires, we identified: 1) how land-use and climate change is influencing priority ESDs; 2) the policies directly and indirectly affecting ESD risks; 3) stakeholder perceptions of evidence required for ESD risks; 4) how data and models best inform decision-making; and 5) what novel solutions and integration are needed to meet decision-making needs. Distilling these outcomes, we identify the shared, interconnected risks and gaps for priority EDSs across human, animal and plant health for better preparedness. The workshop revealed that priority ESDs varied across sectors, reflecting specific concerns and responsibilities across sectors. Vector-borne diseases (VBDs) emerged as a primary concern for human and animal health. Plant health ESD concerns where more challenging to classify due to multi-layered environmental influences. Regulation frameworks and policies remain siloed across sectors. Across sectors, surveillance and monitoring emerged as a primary concern, with participants highlighting both systematic and biological monitoring needs, with participants declaring a reduction in surveillance capacity over time. Specifically for VBDs, participants noted priority data gaps hinder risk preparedness, especially how environment affects vector-host ecology. There was a specific need to address microclimate predictions, which are often underutilised. Participants consistently highlighted the need for better cost-benefit analysis capabilities, noting how current economic impact assessment remained limited. There are significant challenges for cross-sectorial integration partially from a lack of data, but also from difficulty in combining different data streams effectively or at all. The data gaps described above hindered improvements in risk assessments. Data gaps also hinder model development to be used by stakeholders, with stakeholders identifying the need for models to better capture vector and disease dynamics and how they are affected by environmental variation and biological relationships. Another key theme identified was the need for models to explore how management and policy objectives should fundamentally shape model development. The interface between research and policy communities was seen as crucial for ensuring tools remain relevant and effective for decision-making. While discussions revealed different cross-sectoral requirements, several challenges were identified as impeding effective integration. Legislative complexity emerged as a significant barrier. Participants noted how the legislative framework is complex and rarely works across departments, highlighting structural challenges in cross-departmental coordination. Our review of (49) policies and subsequent analysis showed that while most policies acknowledge climate-related pressures such as temperature changes and extreme weather events, land use and biological pressures remain inadequately addressed, with explicit One Health ESD integration featuring rarely across the policy landscape. Across the 49, we found 27 policies connecting or focusing on ESDs or disease risks, taken as impacts raiding from the drivers and pressures. For these policies (n=27), 11 establish explicit focus on diseases through direct causal statements or specific disease names including plant health threats, human and animal health threats , alongside broader categories such as vector-borne diseases, antimicrobial-resistant infections, and zoonotic disease outbreaks including references to COVID-19. Although 16 did not mention specific ESDs explicitly by name or group, some policy documents relate health considerations through broader health terminology and framework-based approaches such as linking air quality, water quality and ecosystem services to ecosystem health and pest disease management, health-related deaths, or general references to environmental health threats or using comprehensive language covering disease outbreaks, public health emergencies, and health protection incidents. While most documents recognise environmental drivers, the connection from drivers to disease outcomes often remains too indirect or under-evidenced for current practical policy application. In contrast, pressure-disease relationships show stronger integration patterns, particularly within disease-focused policies where substantial majorities mention clear pressure-disease connections. |
| Exploitation Route | We took the results of this Phase 1 project into designing our approach for the Phase 2 bid. Multi-sectorial work remains an open challenge. |
| Sectors | Agriculture Food and Drink Environment Government Democracy and Justice Other |
| Description | Defra BEARS group |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Participation in a guidance/advisory committee |
| Impact | Better knowledge on how environment affects diseases. |
| Description | Participate in Scientific Pandemic Infections group on Modelling (SPI-M) |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Participation in a guidance/advisory committee |
| Impact | Provide guidance for preparedness for vector-borne diseases. |