Abstract
We undertook a scoping study to map the relevant evidence, summarise the findings, and to help identify gaps in the knowledge base on the relationship between land use/land-use change and human health in Australia. Our systematic search of the scientific literature for relevant articles up to August 2020 identified 37 articles. All 37 articles meeting our inclusion criteria were published after 2003. Zoonotic or vector-borne disease constituted the most common health outcome type studied. Agriculture/grazing was the land use/land-use change type most frequently represented in the literature, followed by coal seam gas extraction and open cut coal mining. The relationship between land use/land use change and human health in Australia, is not conclusive from the existing evidence. This is because of (1) a lack of comprehensive coverage of the topic, (2) a lack of coverage of the geography, (3) a lack of coverage of study types, and (4) conflicting results in the research already undertaken. If we are to protect human health and the ecosystems which support life, more high-quality, specific, end-user driven research is needed to support land management decisions in Australia. Until the health effects of further land use change are better known and understood, caution ought to be practiced in land management and land conversion.
1. Introduction
The planet’s natural systems are being transformed through human activity in ways that are profound, extraordinary, and accelerating [1,2,3,4]. Anthropogenic land use/land-use change (LULUC)—along with climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion—has, and continues to, degrade the environment to the extent that nearly every dimension of human health is implicated [1,2]. Given that the major causes of environmental degradation interact to impact human health, they are in effect, inextricable [1,2]. Informing responsible decision making that protects both human health and the health of the natural systems that support health, nonetheless requires an understanding of the effects of each of the major causes separately, in the relevant local context.
Like much of the globe, the majority of Australia’s landscape has been significantly altered (mostly in the last two and a half centuries) to accommodate population growth and growth economies through: urbanisation; agricultural/grazing expansion; forestry; mining; transport; waste management; and other industry, manufacturing, and infrastructure [5,6,7,8,9]. McFarlane et al. (2013) in an extensive examination of the association between infectious disease emergence and land-use and native vegetation change in Australia, reported that 22% of the infectious diseases they reviewed were associated with land conversion [10]. Furthermore, they found that the historical clustering observed in terms of incidence of environmental, vector-borne, and zoonotic disease followed periods of substantial land clearing in Australia [10]. This is supported by findings that suggest that land-use change increases the transmission of henipaviruses (like Hendra virus) in Australia [11,12]. Kessler et al. (2018) and Paez et al.’s (2018) reviews of the evidence on the topic of LULUC and spillover risk of henipaviruses to domestic animals and to humans, exemplifies the way in which LULUC can impact health. In the case of henipaviruses, the altered diet, roosting habitat, and migration behaviours of flying foxes, as a result of changes to their natural habitat, has increased the risk of disease for humans [11,12].
The evidence on the relationship between LULUC and human health in Australia has only relatively recently emerged—within the last two decades. The evidence is neither extensive or comprehensive in terms of coverage of LULUC and health topics, with a predominance of studies on the relationship between LULUC and vector-borne, or zoonotic disease. In order to adequately account for the risks to human health in decision making on land management and proposed land change, up-to-date summaries of the state of the evidence on the relationship between LULUC and health in Australia, are an essential starting point.
In this study, we aimed to assess the current state of evidence on the relationship between LULUC and human health in Australia, and to identify research gaps in the existing literature. We also aimed to draw implications from the existing evidence in order to inform policy and practice. To address this aim, we undertook a scoping study. Scoping studies are an appropriate approach where the ‘mapping’ of the relevant literature is the main goal [13]. Scoping studies typically address broad topics where different study designs and levels of evidence are applicable [13]. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping studies are less focussed on assessing the quality of the included studies [13]. Scoping studies can have a number of different purposes, but the main aim of this scoping study was to summarise the findings and range of research on the relationship between LULUC and human health in Australia. A summary of the evidence is a necessary starting point in terms of a synthesis of findings and to establish the state of the evidence, but also to help identify gaps in the knowledge base—all of which are necessary to ultimately inform practice and policy on land management and proposed land use change. Land management/proposed land use change decisions need to have at their core, a strong evidence base to support the protection not only of human health and wellbeing, but importantly, of the ecosystems that support life.
2. Methods
After Mastel et al. (2018) [14], we adopted for our scoping study the framework outlined by Arksey et al. (2005), [15] taking into account recommendations made by Levac et al. (2010): (1) identification of the relevant research question, (2) identification of relevant articles, (3) article selection, (4) charting of the data, and (5) collecting, summarizing and reporting of the results [13].
2.1. Identifying the Research Question
This scoping study answered the following question: What is the current state of evidence on the relationship between land use/land-use change and human health in Australia?
2.2. Identification of Relevant Articles
2.2.1. Sources of Literature
We conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature for relevant articles in three electronic databases: two content specific databases—Medline/PubMed (biomedical sciences) and PsychINFO (psychology and related disciplines)—and one multidisciplinary database—Web of Science. We did not conduct a primary search for grey literature but included it where relevant, if it came to our notice in the reference lists of key articles.
2.2.2. Search Terms
Apart from specifying place (Australia), the literature search included LULUC terms related broadly to different aspects and activities of land (and freshwater) use and change, and various types of human health outcomes/conditions/diseases. LULUC terms were derived from preliminary searches of the literature, and from key articles on the links between LULUC and health [2,4,14,16]. Similarly, health terms were drawn from key literature [2,4,10,17] and from Australian Health Department lists of nationally notifiable diseases [18]. Key search terms were mapped to each electronic database prior to the article search, with slight variations on some terms across the databases, depending on whether major terms were searched within the ‘subject heading’ or ‘thesaurus’ of a particular database. For example, “natural resources” is the broad subject heading in Medline/PubMed for the natural environment, while “nature (environment)” is the equivalent subject heading or “American Psychological Association Thesaurus” in PsychINFO. Table 1 shows the general terms used, not specific to each database. The search was carried out on March 19, 2019, at which time the citation and abstract for all articles identified via search terms were uploaded to an Endnote (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, U.S.A) X9 library. The search was updated on 12 August 2020.
Table 1.
Key terms with synonyms and syntax used for literature search.
2.2.3. Search Process
Our multi-step process for seeking relevant articles to answer the research question is outlined in Figure 1. Our initial search yielded 3155 articles. Two reviewers (the co-authors) were involved in deciding which articles based on title and abstract appeared sufficiently relevant enough to warrant full-text assessment for eligibility, and which articles finally met our inclusion criteria. At each step, the reviewers chose to eliminate or keep articles through a process of consensus. Thirty-seven articles ultimately met our inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of article search process (LULUC = land use/land-use change).
2.3. Article Selection (Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria)
Publications meeting our criteria included: reports of original research (no reviews or opinion pieces) published up to 19 March 2019; in English; focused on or presenting data from Australia; that refer to a specific health issue; and include the topic of LULUC. The search was updated on 12 August 2020. No further eligible articles were identified.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria specific to the topic of LULUC was defined as either articles that related to one or more aspects of LULUC, or that partly or fully fulfilled the combined (land use, land cover, and land-use change) concept of LULUC as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The ‘land use’ (LU) component was defined as, “the total of arrangements, activities, and inputs that people undertake in a certain land cover type”, with land cover as, “the observed physical and biological cover of the earth’s land, as vegetation or man-made features’ [19]. The ‘land-use change’ (LUC) component was defined as, “…human activities which: (a) change the way land is used (e.g., clearing of forests for agricultural use, including open burning of cleared biomass), or (b) affect the amount of biomass in existing biomass stocks (e.g., forests, village trees, woody savannas, etc.)” [19].
Inclusion/exclusion criteria specific to the topic of human health included articles that focused on either direct health outcomes as a result of LULUC, for example an infection or depression; or causative agents of disease/ill health, for example prevalence of mosquitos or pollution exposure, even where no health measurements were taken. While the presence or absence of causative agents does not always result in ill health, we were interested in capturing published literature on increased risk—even if inexact—of disease in humans in relation to LULUC.
We included studies looking at both positive as well as negative links between LULUC and human health. Notwithstanding the inextricable links between the different forms of environmental degradation, i.e., LULUC and climate change, we excluded studies focusing on climate change/weather extremes and health, because there already exists a relatively large body of evidence on this topic. Articles meeting content/topic criteria were then assessed on the basis of a combination of study objectives and whether the health and LULUC topics were sufficiently the focus of the study and adequately addressed in the results and discussion sections of the articles.
2.4. Data Management and Characterization/Charting
We charted data extracted from all articles meeting the inclusion criteria, in a Microsoft Excel (2016) spreadsheet. Included was: author/s; year of publication; title; research objectives; location; study design; type of LULUC and measures; health outcome and measures; and summary of findings. These data points were selected specifically to answer the research question and meet the study purpose.
3. Analysing, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results
Using the above described charted data as the basis of the analysis, we undertook to quantify the extent, nature and distribution of the studies included in the review (descriptive quantitative analysis). We also organised the literature thematically according to the different types of LULUC and their relationship to human health outcomes (qualitative analysis).
Results
Profile of Included Literature
Table 2 summarises the extent, nature, and distribution of the 37 articles included in the analysis. Of the articles meeting our inclusion criteria, the earliest was published in 2004. There were four times the number of articles published in the 2016-2019 period (n = 12, 32.4%), compared with that of the 2004-2007 (n = 3, 8.1%) period (Table 2). The vast majority of articles described studies which had employed quantitative methods (n = 31, 83.8%) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Profile of included literature.
All Australian states and territories, except South Australia and The Australian Capital Territory, were represented in the included articles, but there was unequal representation across and within states and territories. The State most frequently represented was Queensland, constituting 32.4% of all articles (n = 9 focussing just on Queensland, and n = 3 focussing on eastern Australia which includes Queensland and New South Wales). New South Wales (n = 8, 21.6%, including State-specific, Eastern, and Southeast Australia-located studies) and Western Australia (n = 6, 16.2%) were the next most frequently represented locations in Australia (Table 2).
Over one third (n = 13, 35.1%) of all articles focused on zoonotic or vector-borne disease (Hendra virus, Ross River virus, and mosquito-borne disease—general), with a majority of those specific to Hendra virus and Ross River virus, each constituting n = 4, 10.8% of all articles included (Table 2). The vast majority of zoonotic or vector-borne disease articles (n = 11, 84.6%) measured vector abundance or animal disease as a proxy for human disease, i.e., not as a direct measure of human disease (Table 2). Just less than one third of all articles related to health and wellbeing in general or multiple health outcomes (n = 12, 32.4%), with the remaining one third of articles dedicated to mental health, ecosystem goods and services, melioidosis, pathogen spillover—general, pollen counts, and respiratory disease (Table 2). Over half of all articles (n = 21, 56.7%) based their health outcome of interest on observational data, e.g., incidence, prevalence, mortality, counts of bacteria or pollen, or quantity/quality of the relevant ecosystem goods and services (soil, water, biodiversity) (Table 3). Self-report survey (n = 7, 18.9%), and semi-structured interview (individual and/or focus group) (n = 4, 10.8%) were the next most frequently employed methods for assessing the respective health outcomes of interest (Table 3).
Table 3.
Summary of articles which met inclusion criteria for the Scoping Study.
The most frequent LULUC topic among the included articles was multiple land use/change types (n = 17, 45.9%); in these articles two or more land use/change types were compared in relation to the respective health outcome, and frequently but not always included single or multiple agricultural land use types (Table 2). Dryland salinity (n = 5, 13.5%), coal seam gas extraction (also n = 5, 13.5%), and open cut coal mine (n = 3, 8.1%) were the next most frequent LULUC topics (Table 2). Just less than half (n= 16, 43.2%) of all articles based their LULUC topic of interest on existing land use (GIS mapping and satellite images) or field data (observations, field-surveys) (Table 3). For 15 (40.5%) articles, the LULUC topic of interest did not require data or measurement as it related to either proposed mining or agriculture development or existing mining, contaminated sites, urbanisation, or traditional Indigenous ancestral lands (Table 3).
4. Summary of the Literature: Relationship between Land Use Change and Health in Australia
4.1. Agriculture/Grazing
Two articles focussed specifically on agricultural land use [21,41]. An additional seven articles did not focus on agricultural land use/change alone, but included agriculture/grazing as one of a number of land use types used for comparison in relation to the respective health outcome of interest. (Table 3) [25,28,33,35,39,50,55].
4.2. Dryland Salinity
Secondary salinity occurs over time as a result of agricultural activity in dry environments such as southwestern Western Australia, where the native vegetation has been cleared and replaced with shallow-rooted crops and grazing grasses [26]. Shallow-rooted vegetation draws less on groundwater, which can lead to a rise in the water table, transporting land and surface water-contaminating salts to the surface [26]. Although the phenomenon of secondary salinity necessarily relates to agricultural land use/change, the five articles which focused on various health outcomes related to dryland salinity—‘mental health’; mosquito abundance’; and ‘other chronic disease’—are presented in their own category because of the specific conditions (and health outcomes) of salinity as a LULUC type (Table 3).
4.3. Anthropogenic Land Change—General
Table 3 summarises findings of the eleven articles which measured ‘converted’ versus ‘unconverted’ land, [52] or multiple land use types, in relation to ‘mosquito abundance’; ‘pollen counts’; ‘respiratory disease’; ‘vector-borne and infectious disease’; and ‘wellbeing’ [29,34,42,43,45,47,49,51,53,54].
4.4. Urbanisation
One article focussed specifically on urbanisation as a LULUC type, and assessed the risk of Hendra virus outbreaks in Australia as a result of year-round alternative food for flying foxes in expanding urban-and peri-urban settings and a contraction of natural food sources (Table 3) [30].
4.5. Contaminated Sites
The only article addressing the impacts of contaminated sites (not related to contamination from mining operations) assessed wellbeing as an outcome (Table 3) [56].
4.6. Mining
Eight articles assessed the relationship between mining and health outcomes in Australia. Five were specifically related to coal seam gas (CSG) extraction, [36,38,44,46,48] with the remaining three pertaining to open-cut coal mining [21,32,37]. The five articles which focussed on CSG extraction, variously measured general health, [36,38,48] mental health, [46] or wellbeing [44] as an outcome (Table 3). All three open-cut coal mining articles measured wellbeing as the health outcome (Table 3) [21,32,37].
4.7. Traditionally Owned/Ancestral Indigenous Land Managed by Indigenous Communities
Two articles identified as part of our search process address the importance of access to ancestral lands for the general health and wellbeing of Australian Indigenous communities (Table 3) [22,27].
5. Discussion
Of the 37 articles meeting our inclusion criteria (not restricted by publication date), all were published after 2003. Most of the research focussed on the eastern states of Queensland and New South Wales, and on specific regions within the states and territories. Zoonotic or vector-borne disease constituted the most common health outcome type studied—well over a third of all articles. Agriculture/grazing was by far the LULUC type most frequently represented in the literature we reviewed, followed by coal seam gas extraction and open cut coal mining.
5.1. Land Use/Land-Use Change and Human Health in Australia
Agriculture/grazing was reported by the range of studies in the review as having negative, inconclusive, and neutral relationships with health outcomes in Australia. In the literature, agriculture/grazing was related to decreased wellbeing [39,40]; increased abundance of disease-transmitting mosquitoes [20,23,24,28]; decreased ESGs [36]; occurrence of the melioidosis bacterium B. pseudomallei in soil [25,33]; and hospitalisations for depression [26,31]. The relationship between agriculture/grazing and soil quality [51]; and agriculture/grazing and water quality, Ref. [55] was mixed/inconclusive. There was no association between mental health scores in women, and soil salination, in a study conducted in the rural south-western corner of Western Australia [41] The mixed and sometimes conflicting findings epitomise the complexity of the relationship between LULUC and human health, and the challenge of synthesising findings, largely because of the variety of methods used. For example, studies looking at the association between mental illness and dryland salinity in the same area in Western Australia came to different conclusions on the basis of different methods. Dryland salinity can have economic and social impacts on communities, with changes in agricultural productivity leading to financial stress and potentially mental illness, but Fearnley et al. (2014)—using self-reported survey data as part of an established longitudinal study of a randomly recruited study sample from the national Medicare health insurance database, which covers all citizens and permanent residents of Australia—found no associations between salinity and mental health scores for women across three age cohorts [41]. By contrast, Speldewinde et al. (2009) and Speldewinde et al. (2011) reported findings which indicated that after adjustment for major socioeconomic and demographic factors, an elevated risk of hospitalisations for depression was associated with residence in areas proportionately more affected by dryland salinity [26,31]. In explaining findings inconsistent with their own, Fearnley et al. (2014) proffered that area level measurements of aspects of the physical environment—such as salinity—may be poor indicators for individual health outcome analyses due to ‘ecological fallacy’, which is commonly observed in spatial analysis, i.e., the individuals being admitted to hospital may not be the same individuals exposed to dryland salinity [41]. Differences in results between Fearnley’s et al. (2014) and the two Speldewinde (2009, and 2011) studies on salinity and depression may also be due to the use of different measures for mental health: the Mental Health Component Score (MCS) versus the use of hospital admission data, respectively [41]. While one would expect some correlation, the MCS—a general measure of mental health— is unlikely to capture exactly the same phenomenon as hospital admissions data, [41] in terms of both severity and specificity of mental health conditions.
Other anthropogenic LULUC types such as industry, non-native grasslands, and urbanisation—all of which necessarily impact biodiversity—were negatively associated with health in terms of increased mosquito abundance and species richness [34,47,49,54]; Hendra virus spillover to horses and humans [30,45,51]; and respiratory disease [54]. However, as with agriculture/grazing, the evidence indicated a nuanced relationship between the ‘other anthropogenic LULUC types’ and human health. For example, the highest risk of pathogen spillover (not disease specific, in the case of Faust’s et al. (2018) simulation study) from wildlife to domestic animals, to humans, occurs at intermediate levels of habitat loss [52]. Interspecies contact and host populations not only vary with the proportion of land converted; time since initial habitat loss is also likely to drive changes in infectious disease transmission [52]. The working explanation for the dynamic relationship between land change and pathogen spillover—using mosquito-borne disease as an example—is that declining resources for reservoir hosts (wildlife) in converted landscapes drive wildlife from their natural habitat, leaving infected vectors (mosquitoes) to attain blood meals from the (now) more readily available human hosts [52]. Pathogen spillover is complex and influenced by multiple processes, including pathogen dynamics in reservoir hosts, environmental processes determining pathogen survival, carriage of the pathogen beyond hosts, and the behaviour and susceptibility of recipient hosts [10,11,12,57]. Each one of these processes may respond to changing landscapes and determine the particular relationship between land conversion and disease emergence [52].
Evidence for the relationship between mining—another anthropogenic LULUC type—and health in Australia also signified a complex dynamic, with competing vested interests, and differential impacts and benefits. Coal seam gas extraction was found to be associated with depression and stress in farmers [46]; increased population hospitalisation rates for neoplasms (tumours) and blood/immune disease [48]; and various health complaints—skin and eye irritations, headaches, paraesthesia, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating [36]. However, these findings were contentious, with as many studies on CSG extraction and open cut coal mining reporting inconclusive or mixed findings with regard to impacts on health in Australia [32,37,38,44]. For example, The McCarron (2013) investigation which reported various health complaints of residents in a CSG extraction area in Queensland, [36] was in response to a State health department report which concluded no clear link between residents’ health complaints and the local CSG activities [38] McCarron (2013) surveyed 113 residents from 38 households who had previously expressed concerns about health impacts of the CSG activity, and collated their self-reported health status [36]. As part of the study, neither clinical nor environmental sampling assessments were undertaken, and the sample was not representative of the whole population [36]. While the Queensland Health report indicated that no medical staff visited the CSG site as part of their investigations, and only 15 people were clinically examined, they reported that there was nothing in their environmental assessments on air, water, or soil to indicate a risk to human health [38]. McCarron’s (2013) conclusions do align more closely, than do the Queensland Health (2013) report, to a summary of literature from Australia and overseas regarding human and environmental health concerns from unconventional gas mining [58]. Notwithstanding incomparable methods, and methodological limitations in the two reviewed articles reporting conflicting findings, they serve to highlight the challenges in undertaking studies involving CSG exploration and health outcomes in Australia, including the small sizes of the affected populations and highly politically-charged situations.
Another complexity highlighted in the available evidence on the relationship between land use type, and human health in Australia, was the finding of ‘opportunity-threat’ differentials within affected groups. For example, while a proposed open cut-coal mine development in Queensland was a source of stress (‘threat’) to a range of community members—but especially to farmers and their families—some in the community saw ‘opportunity’, and this differential created tension between groups [37]. Similarly—albeit related to agricultural development—Adams et al. (2014) identified differences in responses by residents to the proposed development of a river catchment area in the Northern Territory. Indigenous respondents were more likely to value socio-cultural and biodiversity factors over the ‘commercial’ factors of the proposed development, while respondents who earned an income from agriculture were more likely to value the economic gains from which they were likely to benefit [40]. There was also evidence in the literature we reviewed, of differential impacts on human health and wellbeing over time in relation to land use change. This was epitomised by the outcomes of a choice modelling exercise with residents in the Hunter Valley Coalfields of New South Wales, in relation to the proposed extension of an open-cut coal mine. Community well-being declined with increased clearing of endangered ecological communities, loss [59] of highly significant Aboriginal sites, and displacement of rural families as a result of the mine’s extension, but increased with the length of time that the mine provided employment and with the planting or protection of endangered ecological communities as offsets [32].
Both articles on the relationship between traditionally-owned ancestral land and health showed a positive association [22,27]. Traditionally-owned ancestral lands are unlike other LULUC categories in this scoping study in that they are not focussed on a change from unconverted to converted landscapes/ecologies/ecosystems which may impact human health and wellbeing. Rather, they evaluate the relationship between access to this ‘land use type,’ and health. While all of Australia is technically ‘traditionally-owned’—ancestral land was never ceded to colonists when they settled in Australia in the late eighteenth century—only a proportion of the continent is currently recognised in common law as being traditionally-owned. Access to ancestral lands for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is either through a grant of freehold or perpetual lease title (land rights) or through native title which arises as a result of the “recognition of pre-existing Indigenous rights and interests according to traditional laws and customs” [60]. In the case of native title, Indigenous groups may have customary rights to areas with other land tenure, such as agriculture or National Park land [22]. By implication, conversion of traditionally-owned ancestral land, while it may not alter access, would have implications for the health of the traditional owners themselves, given the inextricable link between the health of the land and the health of Indigenous Australians [59,61,62].
5.2. Limitations of the Scoping Study Methods
We used a systematic and comprehensive search process, and adhered to an established scoping study framework. Notwithstanding this, the broad nature of the research question, and the fact that the research topic necessarily involves multiple scientific disciplines—often employing different terminology—meant that it was possible that some relevant articles were not captured in our search process. Within those limits, we nonetheless were able to fulfil the aims of our scoping study to summarise the range of current research reports and the relationship between LULUC and health in Australia, and identify broad gaps and implications for practice and policy.
5.3. Limitations of the Literature Reviewed
The evidence on the relationship between LULUC and human health in Australia is necessarily complex, with a multiplicity of land use types, health outcomes, and methods used. Some studies compared converted and unconverted land use types in relation to a health outcome, while others focussed on the relationship between one already converted land use-type/proposed land use change, in relation to a health outcome. Primarily because of the nature of the topic, there were no studies assessing causation, only association, which limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the findings. Human health states have multiple, interacting causes and comorbidities, and effects of a particular type of LULUC may only be relevant to that particular place, with findings unable to be generalised. The study of LULUC is also inherently complex, both in terms how it interacts with other factors—especially climate change—to impact health, and the ways in which it can impact health. Landscape changes can both exacerbate climate change, for example, deforestation which reduces carbon dioxide sinks can contribute to warming, and/or LULUC can be exacerbated by climate change (for example, loss of vegetation from drought) [3,4]. In combination, LULUC, climate change, and stratospheric ozone depletion can impact human health and wellbeing either directly (for example, through heatwaves or exposure to pollutants), indirectly (for example, through livelihood loss or population displacement), and/or through the mediation of compromised ecosystems and ecosystem ‘goods and services’ (EGSs), such as reduced food yields or altered infectious disease risk [2,17]. Unless climatic factors (which measured at a single point in time may not necessarily be representative of anthropogenic climate change) are measured alongside LULUC, it may be difficult to confidently attribute the measured health impacts to LULUC alone. Two of the studies we reviewed, did also measure climatic factors. Haberle et al. (2014) assessed the macroecology of airborne pollen in urban areas, Ref. [42] and reported that the only statistically significant factor explaining the difference between airborne pollen in each of the 11 sites studied was minimum temperature and mean annual precipitation [42]. Similarly, it was found that the critical ecosystem services functions associated with decomposition and nutrients cycling declined with increasing aridity (dryness/lack of precipitation), and that the effects of aridity were of a greater magnitude than any effects due to grazing [50].
5.4. Gaps and Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy
The current scoping study adopted a broad, all-LULUC-all-health outcomes-in-Australia approach, with the primary purpose of summarising and disseminating the findings and the full range of research. It also sought to identify research gaps; the fulfilment of which might ultimately inform policy and practice. In deliberations over a specific land management case—for example, land clearing/deforestation to facilitate agricultural development—practice and policy is likely to be best served by a synthesis of evidence of the impacts on health of that particular LULUC type. While there were 14 papers that described the health impacts of agriculture and grazing (including dryland salinity, a consequence of both), the studies were largely cross-sectional and therefore unable to ascribe causation. In spite of the large impact that agriculture has on water availability and water quality, this remains a large gap in the literature. For example, we found no studies examining the impact of loss of biodiversity, wetlands and rivers on health, in spite of these being major consequences of irrigation [63,64]. We also did not find any studies examining the health impacts of agriculture on microbiological water quality (for example, Cryptosporidium parvum contamination), [65] or any studies investigating the link between agriculture, land degradation and human dust exposure [66,67,68]. Similarly, more prospective studies in relation to the impact of mining are required, together with those that examine longer term impacts. Studies related to the health impacts of urban incursions into natural areas are also limited. General research gaps include geographical representation across and within all states and territories in Australia, and work on the health effects of LULUC which impacts food yield, quality of food, livelihood loss, and population displacement.
The work is specific to the Australian context, but the scoping study methods are necessarily relevant to all contexts. General findings from the current study may be reflective of the state of the evidence for other contexts and would depend on the nature of the research question; for example, whether a broad all LULUC-types and health outcomes approach was taken—as in the current study.
6. Conclusions
The relationship between land use/land use change and human health in Australia is not conclusive from the existing evidence. This is because the topic has not been investigated comprehensively across the whole continent. We also found conflicting results between some of the studies, perhaps reflecting the complexities of the relationships between LULUC and human health. More high-quality, specific, end-user driven research is needed to support land management decisions in Australia—in particular, to consider the human health and the ecological implications of land use changes. During a time of rapid deforestation in many parts of Australia, this work is critically important.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, T.M.D. and L.A.S.; methodology, T.M.D. and L.A.S.; validation, T.M.D. and L.A.S.; formal analysis, T.M.D. and L.A.S.; investigation, T.M.D. and L.A.S.; resources, L.A.S.; data curation, T.M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, T.M.D.; writing—review and editing, T.M.D. and L.A.S.; visualization, T.M.D. and L.A.S.; supervision, L.A.S.; project administration, T.M.D.; funding acquisition, L.A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Myers, S.S.; Gaffikin, L.; Golden, C.D.; Ostfeld, R.S.; Redford, K.H.; Ricketts, T.H.; Turner, W.R.; Osofsky, S.A. Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 18753–18760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmee, S.; Haines, A.; Beyrer, C.; Boltz, F.; Capon, A.G.; Dias, B.F.D.S.; Ezeh, A.; Frumkin, H.; Gong, P.; Head, P.; et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 2015, 386, 1973–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 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: Bonn, Germany, 2019; Available online: https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_7_10_add-1-_advance_0.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35245 (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Australian Goverment Department of Agriculture. Land Use Mapping: Commonwealth of Australia. 2019. Available online: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/aclump/land-use/land-use-mapping (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Lesslie, R.; Thackway, R.; Smith, J. A National-Level Vegetation Assets, States and Transitions (VAST) Dataset for Australia (version 2.0); Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Metcalfe, D.J.; Bui, E.N. Australia State of the Environment 2016: Land, Independent Report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Energy; Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy: Canberra, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bryan, B.A.; Nolan, M.; McKellar, L.; Connor, J.D.; Newth, D.; Harwood, T.; King, D.; Navarro, J.; Cai, Y.; Gao, L.; et al. Land-use and sustainability under intersecting global change and domestic policy scenarios: Trajectories for Australia to 2050. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 38, 130–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradshaw, C.J.A. Little left to lose: Deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization. J. Plant Ecol. 2012, 5, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFarlane, R.A.; Sleigh, A.C.; McMichael, A.J. Land-use change and emerging infectious disease on an island continent. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 2699–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, M.K.; Becker, D.J.; Peel, A.J.; Justice, N.V.; Lunn, T.; Crowley, D.E.; Jones, D.N.; Eby, P.; Sánchez, C.A.; Plowright, R.K. Changing resource landscapes and spillover of Henipa viruses. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2018, 1429, 78–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Páez, D.J.; Restif, O.; Eby, P.; Plowright, R.K. Optimal foraging in seasonal environments: Implications for residency of Australian flying foxes in food-subsidized urban landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 373, 20170097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; Nixon, S.A.; Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; Nixon, S.A. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010, 5, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastel, M.; Bussalleu, A.; Paz-Soldan, V.A.; Salmón-Mulanovich, G.; Valdés-Velásquez, A.; Hartinger-Peña, S.M. Critical linkages between land use change and human health in the Amazon region: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coutts, C.; Hahn, M. Green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9768–9798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corvalan, C.; Hales, S.; McMichael, A.J. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Health synthesis. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43354/9241563095.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Australian Government Department of Health. Australian National Notifiable Diseases by Disease Type 2019. Available online: https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-surveil-nndss-casedefs-distype.htm (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Watson, R.T.; Noble, I.R.; Bolin, B.; Ravindranath, N.H.; Verardo, D.J.; Dokken, D.J. (Eds.) Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Jardine, A.; Lindsay, M.; Heyworth, J.; Weinstein, P. Dry-season mosquito breeding associated with irrigation in the Northeast Kimberley Region of Western Australia: Potential impact on mosquito-borne disease transmission. EcoHealth 2004, 1, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, G.; Sartore, G.-M.; Connor, L.; Higginbotham, N.; Freeman, S.; Kelly, B.; Stain, H.; Tonna, A.; Pollard, G. Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. Australas. Psychiatry 2007, 15, S95–S98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, F.H.; Jacups, S.P.; Vickery, A.J.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Ecohealth and aboriginal testimony of the nexus between human health and place. EcoHealth 2007, 4, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jardine, A.; Lindsay, M.D.; Johansen, C.A.; Cook, A.; Weinstein, P. Impact of dryland salinity on population dynamics of vector mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Ross River virus in inland areas of southwestern Western Australia. J. Med. Entomol. 2008, 45, 1011–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carver, S.; Spafford, H.; Storey, A.; Weinstein, P. Dryland salinity and the ecology of Ross River virus: The ecological underpinnings of the potential for transmission. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009, 9, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaestli, M.; Mayo, M.; Harrington, G.; Ward, L.; Watt, F.; Hill, J.V.; Cheng, A.C.; Currie, B.J. Landscape changes influence the occurrence of the melioidosis bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei in soil in Northern Australia. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2009, 3, e364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speldewinde, P.; Cook, A.; Davies, P.; Weinstein, P. A relationship between environmental degradation and mental health in rural Western Australia. Health Place 2009, 15, 880–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingsley, J.Y.; Townsend, M.; Phillips, R.; Aldous, D. “If the land is healthy … it makes the people healthy”: The relationship between caring for Country and health for the Yorta Yorta Nation, Boonwurrung and Bangerang Tribes. Health Place 2009, 15, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carver, S.; Goater, S.; Allen, G.R.; Rowbottom, R.M.; Fearnley, E.; Weinstein, P. Relationships of the Ross River virus (Togoviridae: Alphavirus) vector, Aedes camptorhynchus (Thomson) (Diptera: Culicidae), to biotic and abiotic factors in saltmarshes of south-eastern Tasmania, Australia: A preliminary study. Aust. J. Èntomol. 2011, 50, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luck, G.W.; Davidson, P.; Boxall, D.; Smallbone, L. Relations between urban bird and plant communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 816–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plowright, R.K.; Foley, P.; Field, H.E.; Dobson, A.P.; Foley, J.E.; Eby, P.; Daszak, P. Urban habituation, ecological connectivity and epidemic dampening: The emergence of Hendra virus from flying foxes (Pteropus spp.). Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2011, 278, 3703–3712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speldewinde, P.; Cook, A.; Davies, P.; Weinstein, P. The hidden health burden of environmental degradation: Disease comorbidities and dryland salinity. EcoHealth 2011, 8, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillespie, R.; Bennett, J. Valuing the environmental, cultural and social impacts of open-cut coal mining in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales, Australia. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2012, 1, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaestli, M.; Schmid, M.; Mayo, M.; Rothballer, M.; Harrington, G.; Richardson, L.; Hill, A.; Hill, J.; Tuanyok, A.; Keim, P.; et al. Out of the ground: Aerial and exotic habitats of the melioidosis bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei in grasses in Australia. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 14, 2058–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steiger, D.M.; Johnson, P.; Hilbert, D.W.; Ritchie, S.; Jones, D.; Laurance, S.G. Effects of landscape disturbance on mosquito community composition in tropical Australia. J. Vector Ecol. 2012, 37, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baral, H.; Keenan, R.J.; Fox, J.C.; Stork, N.E.; Kasel, S. Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: A case study from south-eastern Australia. Ecol. Complex. 2013, 13, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarron, G. Symptomatology of a Gas Field: An Independent Health Survey in the Tara Rural Residential Estates and Environs. Available online: https://www.gabpg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-04-symptomatology_of_a_gas_field_Geralyn_McCarron.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2020).
- Moffatt, J.; Baker, P. Farmers, mining and mental health: The impact on a farming community when a mine is proposed. Rural Soc. 2013, 23, 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queensland Health. Coal Seam Gas in the Tara Region: Summary Risk Assessment of Health Complaints and Environmental Monitoring Data. Available online: https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableoffice/tabledpapers/2013/5413t2306.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Stoeckl, N.; Jackson, S.; Pantus, F.; Finn, M.; Kennard, M.J.; Pusey, B.J. An integrated assessment of financial, hydrological, ecological and social impacts of ‘development’ on Indigenous and non-indigenous people in northern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 159, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, V.M.; Pressey, R.L.; Stoeckl, N. Navigating trade-offs in land-use planning: Integrating human well-being into objective setting. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fearnley, E.J.; Magalhães, R.J.S.; Speldewinde, P.; Weinstein, P.; Dobson, A. Environmental correlates of mental health measures for women in western Australia. EcoHealth 2014, 11, 502–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haberle, S.G.; Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Newnham, R.M.; Johnston, F.H.; Beggs, P.J.; Buters, J.; Campbell, B.; Erbas, B.; Godwin, I.; Green, B.J.; et al. The macroecology of airborne pollen in Australian and New Zealand urban areas. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e97925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, C.; Skelly, C.; Kung, N.; Roberts, B.; Field, H. Flying-fox species density-A spatial risk factor for Hendra virus infection in horses in Eastern Australia. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walton, A.; McCrea, R.; Leonard, R. CSIRO Survey of Community Wellbeing and Responding to Change: CSIRO: Western Downs Region in Queensland, Australia. 2014. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rod_Mccrea/publication/312043695_CSIRO_survey_of_Community_Wellbeing_and_responding_to_change_Western_Downs_region_in_Queensland/links/586c769008ae8fce4919e776.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Field, H.E.; Smith, C.S.; De Jong, C.E.; Melville, D.; Broos, A.; Kung, N.; Thompson, J.; Dechmann, D.K.N. Landscape utilisation, animal behaviour and Hendra virus risk. EcoHealth 2016, 13, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, M.I.; Hine, D.W.; Bhullar, N.; Dunstan, D.A.; Bartik, W. Fracked: Coal seam gas extraction and farmers’ mental health. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 47, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steiger, D.B.M.; Ritchie, S.A.; Laurance, S.G.W. Mosquito communities and disease risk influenced by land use change and seasonality in the Australian tropics. Parasites Vectors 2016, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, A.K.; Watt, K.; Cameron, C.M.; Vink, S.; Page, A.; Jagals, P. All-age hospitalization rates in coal seam gas areas in Queensland, Australia, 1995–2011. BMC Public Health 2015, 16, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claflin, S.B.; Webb, C.E. Surrounding land use significantly influences adult mosquito abundance and species richness in urban mangroves. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 25, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandandorj, S.; Eldridge, D.J.; Travers, S.K.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M. Contrasting effects of aridity and grazing intensity on multiple ecosystem functions and services in Australian woodlands. Land Degrad Dev. 2017, 28, 2098–2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, M.G.; Wiethoelter, A.; Haseeb, M.A. The impact of human population pressure on flying fox niches and the potential consequences for Hendra virus spillover. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faust, C.L.; McCallum, H.I.; Bloomfield, L.S.P.; Gottdenker, N.L.; Gillespie, T.R.; Torney, C.J.; Dobson, A.P.; Plowright, R.K. Pathogen spillover during land conversion. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 471–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liddicoat, C.; Bi, P.; Waycott, M.; Glover, J.; Lowe, A.J.; Weinstein, P. Landscape biodiversity correlates with respiratory health in Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, M.G.; Webb, C. Hydrological features and the ecological niches of mammalian hosts delineate elevated risk for Ross River virus epidemics in anthropogenic landscapes in Australia. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijesiri, B.; Deilami, K.; Goonetilleke, A. Evaluating the relationship between temporal changes in land use and resulting water quality. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 234, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prior, J.H.; Gorman-Murray, A.; McIntyre, E.; Connon, I.; Adams, J.; Madden, B. A geography of residents’ worry about the disruptive effects of contaminated sites. Geogr. Res. 2019, 57, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plowright, R.K.; Parrish, C.R.; McCallum, H.; Hudson, P.J.; Ko, A.I.; Graham, A.L.; Lloyd-Smith, J.O. Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2017, 15, 502–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haswell-Elkins, M.; Bethmont, A. Health concerns associated with unconventional gas mining in rural Australia. Rural. Remote. Health. 2016, 16, 3825. [Google Scholar]
- Maher, P. A review of ’traditional’ aboriginal health beliefs. Aust. J. Rural. Health 1999, 7, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Native Title: Australian Government. 2019. Available online: https://www.ag.gov.au/nativetitle (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Garnett, S.; Sithole, B.; Whitehead, P.J.; Burgess, C.P.; Johnston, F.H.; Lea, T. Healthy country, healthy people: Policy implications of links between indigenous human health and environmental condition in tropical Australia. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2009, 68, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutschini, M. Engaging with holism in Australian Aboriginal health policy-A review. Aust. N. Z. Health Policy 2005, 2, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Adame, F.; Arthington, A.H.; Waltham, N.J.; Hasan, S.; Selles, A.; Ronan, M. Managing threats and restoring wetlands within catchments of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2019, 29, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gell, P.; Reid, M.; Wilby, R.L. Management pathways for the floodplain wetlands of the southern Murray-Darling basin: Lessons from history. River Res. Appl. 2019, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, B.A.; Kandulu, J.M. Cost-Effective Alternatives for Mitigating Cryptosporidium Risk in Drinking Water and Enhancing Ecosystem Services. Available online: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008WR007606 (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Hooper, J.; Marx, S. A global doubling of dust emissions during the Anthropocene? Glob. Planet. Chang. 2018, 169, 70–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marx, S.K.; Kamber, B.S.; McGowan, H.; Denholm, J. Holocene dust deposition rates in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin record the interplay between aridity and the position of the mid-latitude westerlies. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2011, 30, 3290–3305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marx, S.K.; McGowani, H.; Kamber, B.S.; Knight, J.M.; Denholm, J.; Zawadzki, A. Unprecedented wind erosion and perturbation of surface geochemistry marks the Anthropocene in Australia. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2014, 119, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).