Search for: All records

https://issues.org/new-theory-increasingly-tangled-banks/ Twombly, Saran, Alan Hastings, Tom Miller, Michael Cortez, Karen Abbott, Tanjona Ramiadantsoa, Julie Blackwood, and Olivia Prosper. “New Theory for Increasingly Tangled Banks.” Issues in Science and Technology 38, no. 4 (Summer 2022): 39–44. Theory has fallen out of fashion in the sciences, in favor of data collection and number crunching. But the conceptual frameworks provided by theory are essential for addressing society’s most complex and urgent problems. 

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. 

Abstract Managing social‐ecological systems (SES) requires balancing the need to tailor actions to local heterogeneity and the need to work over large areas to accommodate the extent of SES. This balance is particularly challenging for policy since the level of government where the policy is being developed determines the extent and resolution of action.We make the case for a new research agenda focused on ecological federalism that seeks to address this challenge by capitalizing on the flexibility afforded by a federalist system of governance. Ecological federalism synthesizes the environmental federalism literature from law and economics with relevant ecological and biological literature to address a fundamental question: What aspects of SES should be managed by federal governments and which should be allocated to decentralized state governments?This new research agenda considers the bio‐geo‐physical processes that characterize state‐federal management tradeoffs for biodiversity conservation, resource management, infectious disease prevention, and invasive species control. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.