Emphasize personal health benefits to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates.

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a tremendous scientific response to the current global pandemic. However, vaccines per se do not save lives and restart economies. Their success depends on the number of people getting vaccinated. We used a survey experiment to examine the impact on vaccine intentions of a variety of public health messages identified as particularly promising: three messages that emphasize different benefits from the vaccines (personal health, the health of others, and the recovery of local and national economies) and one message that emphasizes vaccine safety. Because people will likely be exposed to multiple messages in the real world, we also examined the effect of these messages in combination. Based on a nationally quota representative sample of 3,048 adults in the United States, our findings suggest that several forms of public messages can increase vaccine intentions, but messaging that emphasizes personal health benefits had the largest impact.

Economic optimization of a global strategy to address the pandemic threat.

Emerging pandemics threaten global health and economies and are increasing in frequency. Globally coordinated strategies to combat pandemics, similar to current strategies that address climate change, are largely adaptive, in that they attempt to reduce the impact of a pathogen after it has emerged. However, like climate change, mitigation strategies have been developed that include programs to reduce the underlying drivers of pandemics, particularly animal-to-human disease transmission. Here, we use real options economic modeling of current globally coordinated adaptation strategies for pandemic prevention. We show that they would be optimally implemented within 27 y to reduce the annual rise of emerging infectious disease events by 50% at an estimated one-time cost of approximately $343.7 billion. We then analyze World Bank data on multilateral "One Health" pandemic mitigation programs. We find that, because most pandemics have animal origins, mitigation is a more cost-effective policy than business-as-usual adaptation programs, saving between $344.0.7 billion and $360.3 billion over the next 100 y if implemented today. We conclude that globally coordinated pandemic prevention policies need to be enacted urgently to be optimally effective and that strategies to mitigate pandemics by reducing the impact of their underlying drivers are likely to be more effective than business as usual.

Complementarity in the provision of ecosystem services reduces the cost of mitigating amplified natural disturbance events.

Climate change has been implicated as a root cause of the recent surge in natural disturbance events such as storms, wildfires, and insect outbreaks. This climate-based surge has led to a greater focus on disturbance-mitigating benefits of ecosystem management. Quantifying these benefits requires knowledge of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic disturbances, which is lacking at the temporal and spatial scales needed to inform ecosystem-based management. This study investigates a specific relationship between timber harvesting and climate-amplified outbreaks of mountain pine beetle. If harvesting is located to mitigate long-distance insect dispersal, there is potential for a win-win outcome in which both timber production and forest conservation can be increased. This spatially targeted harvesting strategy lowers the cost of providing disturbance-mitigating ecosystem services, because valuable timber products are also produced. Mitigating long-distance dispersal also produces net gains in forest conservation across various stakeholder groups. These results speak to ongoing federal efforts to encourage forest vegetation removal on public forestlands to improve forest health. These efforts will lower the cost of responding to climate-amplified natural disturbance events but only if vegetation removal efforts are spatially located to reduce disturbance risk. Otherwise, efforts to improve forest health may be converting forest conservation services to timber services.

Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits.

International commerce in live organisms presents a policy challenge for trade globalization; sales of live organisms create wealth, but some nonindigenous species cause harm. To reduce damage, some countries have implemented species screening to limit the introduction of damaging species. Adoption of new risk assessment (RA) technologies has been slowed, however, by concerns that RA accuracy remains insufficient to produce positive net economic benefits. This concern arises because only a small proportion of all introduced species escape, spread, and cause harm (i.e., become invasive), so a RA will exclude many noninvasive species (which provide a net economic benefit) for every invasive species correctly identified. Here, we develop a simple cost:benefit bioeconomic framework to quantify the net benefits from applying species prescreening. Because invasive species are rarely eradicated, and their damages must therefore be borne for long periods, we have projected the value of RA over a suitable range of policy time horizons (10-500 years). We apply the model to the Australian plant quarantine program and show that this RA program produces positive net economic benefits over the range of reasonable assumptions. Because we use low estimates of the financial damage caused by invasive species and high estimates of the value of species in the ornamental trade, our results underestimate the net benefit of the Australian plant quarantine program. In addition, because plants have relatively low rates of invasion, applying screening protocols to animals would likely demonstrate even greater benefits.