Wildlife health in environmental impact assessments: are we missing a key metric?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) aim to assess the predicted effects of future projects on the environment, human health, and the economic potential of a region. They are an instrumental tool for sustainable development and to reduce the impact of large-scale industrial projects on biodiversity. The accurate assessment of the effects of projects on wildlife populations has a variety of ecological, cultural, and economic implications. However, assessments are commonly done using indirect indicators such as the predicted impact of changes in the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat and (or) predicted changes in nonspecific wildlife population metrics (e.g., relative abundance). In recent decades, the interpretation of wildlife health has moved from the classical dichotomous state of “disease presence/absence” to a broader concept that integrates the interaction of biological, social, and environmental health determinants. We sought to determine how wildlife health metrics are used in EIA processes and propose a framework to characterize, quantify, and monitor wildlife health in future EIAs. First, we performed a targeted review of EIA documents from three jurisdictions in Canada to characterize the relevance and use of “wildlife health” in these documents. Then, we reviewed case studies and research examples to understand wildlife health in different contexts associated with conservation biology to propose a framework to incorporate wildlife health into baseline monitoring and mitigation processes in EIAs. Our targeted review illustrates that while wildlife health and related terminology is often invoked in the main and specific objectives of EIAs, it is rarely tracked and quantified in EIAs and related processes. We identified approaches that can be used to effectively incorporate wildlife health in EIAs, including context-specific wildlife health metrics, participatory epidemiology, community-based sampling, and local ecological knowledge. We illustrate case studies where wildlife health can facilitate the inclusion of communities, Indigenous governments, and local ecological knowledge into the evaluation process of projects and developments and into comanagement practices of wildlife. Our work highlights the critical need to move towards incorporating wildlife health into EIA processes to provide a more direct and holistic perspective on the potential environmental impacts and improve the opportunities for early implementation of mitigation measurements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".