COVID-19 and beliefs about tobacco use: an online cross-sectional study in Iran

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - There is mixed evidence surrounding the relationship between tobacco use and COVID-19 infection/progression. The current study investigates beliefs...     

Understanding implications of consumer behavior for wildlife farming and sustainable wildlife trade

Unsustainable wildlife trade affects biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities dependent upon those resources. Wildlife farming has been proposed to promote sustainable trade, but characterizing markets and understanding consumer behavior remain neglected but essential steps in the design and evaluation of such operations. We used sea turtle trade in the Cayman Islands, where turtles have been farm raised for human consumption for almost 50 years, as a case study to explore consumer preferences toward wild‐sourced (illegal) and farmed (legal) products and potential conservation implications. Combining methods innovatively (including indirect questioning and choice experiments), we conducted a nationwide trade assessment through in‐person interviews from September to December 2014. Households were randomly selected using disproportionate stratified sampling, and responses were weighted based on district population size. We approached 597 individuals, of which 37 (6.2%) refused to participate. Although 30% of households had consumed turtle in the previous 12 months, the purchase and consumption of wild products was rare (e.g., 64–742 resident households consumed wild turtle meat [i.e., 0.3–3.5% of households] but represented a large threat to wild turtles in the area due to their reduced populations). Differences among groups of consumers were marked, as identified through choice experiments, and price and source of product played important roles in their decisions. Despite the long‐term practice of farming turtles, 13.5% of consumers showed a strong preference for wild products, which demonstrates the limitations of wildlife farming as a single tool for sustainable wildlife trade. By using a combination of indirect questioning, choice experiments, and sales data to investigate demand for wildlife products, we obtained insights about consumer behavior that can be used to develop conservation‐demand‐focused initiatives. Lack of data from long‐term social–ecological assessments hinders the evaluation of and learning from wildlife farming. This information is key to understanding under which conditions different interventions (e.g., bans, wildlife farming, social marketing) are likely to succeed.     

Impact of floodplain and Stage 0 stream restoration on flood attenuation and floodplain exchange during small frequent storms

River flooding impacts human life and infrastructure, yet provides habitat and ecosystem services. Traditional flood control (e.g., levees, dams) reduces habitat and ecosystem services, and exacerbates flooding elsewhere. Floodplain restoration (i.e., bankfull floodplain reconnection and Stage 0) can also provide flood management, but has not been sufficiently evaluated for small frequent storms. We used 1D unsteady Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System to simulate small storms in a 5 km-long, second-order generic stream from the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and varied % channel restored (starting at the upstream end), restoration location, restoration bank height (distinguishes bankfull from Stage 0 restoration), and floodplain width/Manning's n. Stream restoration decreased (attenuated) peak flow up to 37% and increased floodplain exchange by up to 46%. Floodplain width and % channel restored had the largest impact on flood attenuation. The incremental effects of new restoration projects on flood attenuation were greatest when little prior restoration had occurred. By contrast, incremental effects on floodplain exchange were greatest in the presence of substantial prior restoration, setting up a tradeoff. A similar tradeoff was revealed between attenuation and exchange for project location, but not bank height or floodplain width. In particular, attenuation and exchange were always greater for Stage 0 than for bankfull floodplain restoration. Stage 0 thus may counteract human impacts such as urbanization.     

Quantifying the impact of vegetation-based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction

Developers are often required by law to offset environmental impacts through targeted conservation actions. Most offset policies specify metrics for calculating offset requirements, usually by assessing vegetation condition. Despite widespread use, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of vegetation-based metrics for ensuring biodiversity persistence. We compared long-term impacts of biodiversity offsetting based on area only; vegetation condition only; area × habitat suitability; and condition × habitat suitability in development and restoration simulations for the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia. We simulated development and subsequent offsetting through restoration within a virtual landscape, linking simulations to population viability models for 3 species. Habitat gains did not ensure species persistence. No net loss was achieved when performance of offsetting was assessed in terms of amount of habitat restored, but not when outcomes were assessed in terms of persistence. Maintenance of persistence occurred more often when impacts were avoided, giving further support to better enforce the avoidance stage of the mitigation hierarchy. When development affected areas of high habitat quality for species, persistence could not be guaranteed. Therefore, species must be more explicitly accounted for in offsets, rather than just vegetation or habitat alone. Declines due to a failure to account directly for species population dynamics and connectivity overshadowed the benefits delivered by producing large areas of high-quality habitat. Our modeling framework showed that the benefits delivered by offsets are species specific and that simple vegetation-based metrics can give misguided impressions on how well biodiversity offsets achieve no net loss.