Guidelines for using movement science to inform biodiversity policy

Substantial advances have been made in our understanding of the movement of species, including processes such as dispersal and migration. This knowledge has the potential to improve decisions about biodiversity policy and management, but it can be difficult for decision makers to readily access and integrate the growing body of movement science. This is, in part, due to a lack of synthesis of information that is sufficiently contextualized for a policy audience. Here, we identify key species movement concepts, including mechanisms, types, and moderators of movement, and review their relevance to (1) national biodiversity policies and strategies, (2) reserve planning and management, (3) threatened species protection and recovery, (4) impact and risk assessments, and (5) the prioritization of restoration actions. Based on the review, and considering recent developments in movement ecology, we provide a new framework that draws links between aspects of movement knowledge that are likely the most relevant to each biodiversity policy category. Our framework also shows that there is substantial opportunity for collaboration between researchers and government decision makers in the use of movement science to promote positive biodiversity outcomes.

Environmental migration and capital mobility

Based on utility equalization, this paper considers a developing economy with labor migration. Pollution and capital taxes are imposed on producers in the polluted sector. The optimal policy combinations of capital taxes and pollution taxes for the host economy are examined. A zero capital tax is required for increasing mobility of capital to raise real GDP, while a larger than Pigovian pollution tax is needed for enhancing environmental amenities. The impacts on those two optimal tax rates are examined theoretically and numerically if foreign countries adopt higher environmental standards or if foreign countries impose tax credits on foreign investments.

Addressing migration-related social and health inequalities in Australia: call for research funding priorities to recognise the needs of migrant populations

Objective Migrants constitute 26% of the total Australian population and, although disproportionately affected by chronic diseases, they are under-represented in health research. The aim of the present study was to describe trends in Australian Research Council (ARC)- and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded initiatives from 2002 to 2011 with a key focus on migration-related research funding.Methods Data on all NHMRC- and ARC-funded initiatives between 2002 and 2011 were collected from the research funding statistics and national competitive grants program data systems, respectively. The research funding expenditures within these two schemes were categorised into two major groups: (1) people focused (migrant-related and mainstream-related); and (2) basic science focused. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data and report the trends in NHMRC and ARC funding over the 10-year period.Results Over 10 years, the ARC funded 15 354 initiatives worth A$5.5 billion, with 897 (5.8%) people-focused projects funded, worth A$254.4 million. Migrant-related research constituted 7.8% of all people-focused research. The NHMRC funded 12 399 initiatives worth A$5.6 billion, with 447 (3.6%) people-focused projects funded, worth A$207.2 million. Migrant-related research accounted for 6.2% of all people-focused initiatives.Conclusions Although migrant groups are disproportionately affected by social and health inequalities, the findings of the present study show that migrant-related research is inadequately funded compared with mainstream-related research. Unless equitable research funding is achieved, it will be impossible to build a strong evidence base for planning effective measures to reduce these inequalities among migrants.What is known about the topic? Immigration is on the rise in most developing countries, including Australia, and most migrants come from low- and middle-income countries. In Australia, migrants constitute 26% of the total Australian population and include refugee and asylum seeker population groups. Migrants are disproportionately affected by disease, yet they have been found to be under-represented in health research and public health interventions.What does this paper add? This paper highlights the disproportions in research funding for research among migrants. Despite migrants being disproportionately affected by disease burden, research into their health conditions and risk factors is grossly underfunded compared with the mainstream population.What are the implications for practitioners? Migrants represent a significant proportion of the Australian population and hence are capable of incurring high costs to the Australian health system. There are two major implications for practitioners. First, the migrant population is constantly growing, therefore integrating the needs of migrants into the development of health policy is important in ensuring equity across health service delivery and utilisation in Australia. Second, the health needs of migrants will only be uncovered when a clear picture of their true health status and other determinants of health, such as psychological, economic, social and cultural, are identified through empirical research studies. Unless equitable research funding is achieved, it will be impossible to build a strong evidence base for planning effective measures to reduce health and social inequalities among migrant communities.

Migration and Pacific mortality: estimating migration effects on Pacific mortality rates using Bayesian models.

Pacific people living in New Zealand have higher mortality rates than New Zealand residents of European/Other ethnicity. The aim of this paper is to see whether Pacific mortality rates vary by natality and duration of residence. We used linked census-mortality information for 25- to 74-year-olds in the 2001 census followed for up to three years. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling provided a means of handling sparse data. Posterior mortality rates were directly age-standardized. We found little evidence of mortality differences between the overseas-born and the New Zealand-born for all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. However, we found evidence for lower all-cause (and possibly cancer and CVD) mortality rates for Pacific migrants resident in New Zealand for less than 25 years relative to those resident for more than 25 years. This result may arise from a combination of processes operating over time, including health selection effects from variations in New Zealand's immigration policy, the location of Pacific migrants within the social, political, and cultural environment of the host community, and health impacts of the host culture. We could not determine the relative importance of these processes, but identifying the (modifiable) drivers of the inferred long-term decline in health of the overseas-born Pacific population relative to more-recent Pacific migrants is important to Pacific communities and from a national health and policy perspective.