An official website of the United States government
Abstract BackgroundThe development of public health policy is inextricably linked with governance structure. In our increasingly globalized world, human migration and infectious diseases often span multiple administrative jurisdictions that might have different systems of government and divergent management objectives. However, few studies have considered how the allocation of regulatory authority among jurisdictions can affect disease management outcomes. MethodsHere we evaluate the relative merits of decentralized and centralized management by developing and numerically analyzing a two-jurisdictionSIRSmodel that explicitly incorporates migration. In our model, managers choose between vaccination, isolation, medication, border closure, and a travel ban on infected individuals while aiming to minimize either the number of cases or the number of deaths. ResultsWe consider a variety of scenarios and show how optimal strategies differ for decentralized and centralized management levels. We demonstrate that policies formed in the best interest of individual jurisdictions may not achieve global objectives, and identify situations where locally applied interventions can lead to an overall increase in the numbers of cases and deaths. ConclusionsOur approach underscores the importance of tailoring disease management plans to existing regulatory structures as part of an evidence-based decision framework. Most importantly, we demonstrate that there needs to be a greater consideration of the degree to which governance structure impacts disease outcomes.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on May 1, 2026
Enhancing One Health outcomes using decision science and negotiation
One Health initiatives have advanced zoonotic disease management by recognizing the interconnectedness of three sectors of governance (human, ecosystem, and animal) and by identifying options that can improve full‐system health. Although One Health has had many successes, its full realization may be inhibited by a lack of strategies to overcome simultaneous impediments in decision making and governance. Decision impediments that hinder management may include uncertainty, risk, resource limitations, and trade‐offs among objectives. Governance impediments arise from disparities in costs and benefits of disease management among sectors. Tools and strategies developed from decision science, collaboration, and negotiation theory can help articulate and overcome coinciding decision and governance impediments and enhance multisectoral One Health initiatives. In cases where collaboration and negotiation are insufficient to address disparities in cross‐sector costs and benefits, altering incentive structures might improve disease‐specific outcomes and improve the realization of One Health.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2200310
- PAR ID:
- 10621030
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
- Volume:
- 23
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1540-9295
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Contemporary wildlife disease management is complex because managers need to respond to a wide range of stakeholders, multiple uncertainties, and difficult trade‐offs that characterize the interconnected challenges of today. Despite general acknowledgment of these complexities, managing wildlife disease tends to be framed as a scientific problem, in which the major challenge is lack of knowledge. The complex and multifactorial process of decision‐making is collapsed into a scientific endeavor to reduce uncertainty. As a result, contemporary decision‐making may be oversimplified, rely on simple heuristics, and fail to account for the broader legal, social, and economic context in which the decisions are made. Concurrently, scientific research on wildlife disease may be distant from this decision context, resulting in information that may not be directly relevant to the pertinent management questions. We propose reframing wildlife disease management challenges as decision problems and addressing them with decision analytical tools to divide the complex problems into more cognitively manageable elements. In particular, structured decision‐making has the potential to improve the quality, rigor, and transparency of decisions about wildlife disease in a variety of systems. Examples of management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, white‐nose syndrome, avian influenza, and chytridiomycosis illustrate the most common impediments to decision‐making, including competing objectives, risks, prediction uncertainty, and limited resources.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Existing collaborations among public health practitioners, veterinarians, and ecologists do not sufficiently consider illegal wildlife trade in their surveillance, biosafety, and security (SB&S) efforts even though the risks to health and biodiversity from these threats are significant. We highlight multiple cases to illustrate the risks posed by existing gaps in understanding the intersectionality of the illegal wildlife trade and zoonotic disease transmission. We argue for more integrative science in support of decision-making using the One Health approach. Opportunities abound to apply transdisciplinary science to sustainable wildlife trade policy and programming, such as combining on-the-ground monitoring of health, environmental, and social conditions with an understanding of the operational and spatial dynamics of illicit wildlife trade. We advocate for (1) a surveillance sample management system for enhanced diagnostic efficiency in collaboration with diverse and local partners that can help establish new or link existing surveillance networks, outbreak analysis, and risk mitigation strategies; (2) novel analytical tools and decision support models that can enhance self-directed local livelihoods by addressing monitoring, detection, prevention, interdiction, and remediation; (3) enhanced capacity to promote joint SB&S efforts that can encourage improved human and animal health, timely reporting, emerging disease detection, and outbreak response; and, (4) enhanced monitoring of illicit wildlife trade and supply chains across the heterogeneous context within which they occur. By integrating more diverse scientific disciplines, and their respective scientists with indigenous people and local community insight and risk assessment data, we can help promote a more sustainable and equitable wildlife trade.more » « less
-
Introduction Integrated water management (IWM) involves a range of policies, actions, and organizational processes that go beyond traditional hydrology to consider multifaceted aspects of complex water resource systems. Due to its transdisciplinary nature, IWM comprises input from diverse stakeholders, each with unique perceptions, values, and experiences. However, stakeholders from differing backgrounds may disagree on best practices and collective paths forward. As such, successful IWM must address key governance principles (e.g., information flow, collective decision-making, and power relations) across social and institutional scales. Here, we sought to demonstrate how network structure impacts shared decision-making within IWM. Methods We explored a case study in Houston, Texas, USA, where decision-making stakeholders from various sectors and levels of governance engaged in a participatory modeling workshop to improve adoption of nature-based solutions (NBS) through IWM. The stakeholders used fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) to define an IWM model comprising multifaceted elements and their interrelationships, which influenced the adoption of NBS in Houston. We applied grounded theory and inductive reasoning to categorize tacit belief schemas regarding how stakeholders viewed themselves within the management system. We then used FCM-based modeling to explore how unique NBS policies would translate into more (or less) NBS adoption. Finally, we calculated specific network metrics (e.g., density, hierarchy, and centrality indices) to better understand the structure of human-water relations embedded within the IWM model. We compared the tacit assumptions about stakeholder roles in IWM against the quantitative degrees of influence and collectivism embedded within the stakeholder-defined model. Results and discussion Our findings revealed a mismatch between stakeholders' external belief statements about IWM and their internal assumptions through cognitive mapping and participatory modeling. The case study network was characterized by a limited degree of internal coordination (low density index), high democratic potential (low hierarchy index), and high-efficiency management opportunities (high centrality index), which transcended across socio-institutional scales. These findings contrasted with several of the belief schemas described by stakeholders during the group workshop. We describe how ongoing partnership with the stakeholders resulted in an opportunity for adaptive learning, where the NBS planning paradigm began to shift toward trans-scale collaboration aimed at high-leverage management opportunities. We emphasize how network analytics allowed us to better understand the extent to which key governance principles drove the behavior of the IWM model, which we leveraged to form deeper stakeholder partnerships by identifying hidden opportunities for governance transformation.more » « less
-
During the COVID-19 pandemic, risk negotiation became an important precursor to in-person contact. For young adults, social planning generally occurs through computer-mediated communication. Given the importance of social connectedness for mental health and academic engagement, we sought to understand how young adults plan in-person meetups over computer-mediated communication in the context of the pandemic. We present a qualitative study that explores young adults’ risk negotiation during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period of conflicting public health guidance. Inspired by cultural probe studies, we invited participants to express their preferred precautions for one week as they planned in-person meetups. We interviewed and surveyed participants about their experiences. Through qualitative analysis, we identify strategies for risk negotiation, social complexities that impede risk negotiation, and emotional consequences of risk negotiation. Our findings have implications for AI-mediated support for risk negotiation and assertive communication more generally. We explore tensions between risks and potential benefits of such systems.more » « less
