Progress and new initiatives in IRG Project/IHDP
•
0 likes•220 views
Michael J., Manfredo, Colorado State University, Head of the Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources; One Health Initiative
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (11)
Similar to Progress and new initiatives in IRG Project/IHDP
Similar to Progress and new initiatives in IRG Project/IHDP (20)
More from Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
More from Global Risk Forum GRFDavos (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Progress and new initiatives in IRG Project/IHDP
- 1. Trending Toward A Systems View of The Social Aspects of Zoonosis Michael J. Manfredo Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Colorado State University
- 2. Zoonotic Pathogens From Wildlife 54% of All EID Fastest Growing Need to understand “factors that increase contact between wildlife and humans…” Jones et al. 2008, Nature
- 3. Disease Prevalence Economic, Demographic, Material Structure Ecological Structure Institutional & Governance Psychological Attributes Structure & Agency Heritability Rates of Change and Social Structure Conversion
- 4. Shifting Thought Affects Exposure, Transmission, Zoonotic Disease Spread
- 5. Conditions of Changing in Changing Values Modernization Social Life & Behavior
- 6. Utilitarian Ideal World Principles Wildlife exists Manage for human use wildlife so & enjoyment that humans benefit Abundance of wildlife for Needs of hunting & humans take fishing priority over wildlife Ideology: Human Mastery “Animals and plants are pieces of energy out there to provide humans with food and inspiration.”
- 7. Ideal World Mutualism Principles Humans and Animals should wildlife live side by have rights like side without fear humans All living things Take care of part of one big wildlife family Prevent cruelty Emotional to animals bonding and Ideology: Egalitarianism companionship No animal suffering “All of us need to protect all creatures on Mother Earth. We must speak for the ones who can’t.”
- 8. Percent classified as Utilitarians 50.4 25.4
- 9. Percent classified as Mutualists
- 10. Percent Mutualist by Income 50 Percent Mutualist 40 Hawaii California Washington Oregon Nevada Colorado New Mexico Arizona 30 Texas Kansas Nebraska Oklahoma Utah 20 Montana North Dakota Idaho Wyoming South Dakota Alaska 10 40 50 60 70 Percent Above the Modal Response ($30,000-$49,999) r = .75 (“large” effect)
- 11. Simplifi ed View
- 12. Ratio Map: for every one Mutualist, there are X number of Utilitarians (WA)
- 13. Percent accepting of moving wolves to establish new populations
- 16. Risk from the rapid emergence of zoonotic disease borne by wildlife is rooted in a dynamic, complex, changing social-ecological system. Prediction of disease outbreak and disease spread and overall societal resilience will occur through interdisciplinary teams that attempt to understand these systems and can inform development of fully integrated response strategies.
- 17. Gelfand et al., Science 2011
- 18. Tight More Severe Ecological Conditions Regions Army rule systems, less tolerant toward Disease prevalence, less farmland alcohol, sex, less tolerant of outsiders, water, forests. greater natural Southeast Asia more ethnocentric, less accepting of disasters deviance from norms, etc Confucian Nations Catholic Europe TT TT Protestant Europe English Speaking Nations Latin America Ex-Communist Cultural Zone Loose Less Gelfand et al., Science 2011
Editor's Notes
- For example, residents in urban areas often don’t have to deal with problems typically associated with living near wildlife and are often more supportive of them as “recreational opportunities” to enjoy when in nature. Meanwhile, rural locations where ranching and farming constitute people’s livelihoods are typically less accepting of wolves due to a concern for predation of their livestock. The WVO information presented earlier also may help explain some of these differences (Mutualists, for example, may be more supportive of wolves and less accepting of lethal control).With 50% of Washington’s population living in Seattle and surrounding areas, this is a prime example of how geographic distribution of social data can help in understanding landscape-level issues. High support for wolves does not necessarily mean widespread support.