A social–ecological approach to landscape epidemiology: geographic variation and avian influenza

Abstract

Context Landscape structure influences host-parasite-pathogen dynamics at multiple scales in space and time. Landscape epidemiology, which connects disease ecol-ogy and landscape ecology, is still an emerging field. Objective We argue that landscape epidemiology must move beyond simply studying the influence of landscape configuration and composition on epidemiological processes and towards a more comparative, systems approach that better incorporates social-ecological complexity. Methods We illustrate our argument with a detailed review, based on a single conceptual systems model, of geographic variation in drivers of avian influenza in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and Southern Africa. Results Our three study regions are similar in some ways but quite different in others. The same underlying mechanisms apply in all cases, but differences in the attributes of key components and linkages (most notably avian diversity, the abiotic environment, land use and land cover, and food production systems) create significant differences in avian influenza virus prevalence and human risk between regions. Conclusions Landscape approaches can connect local-and continental-scale elements of epidemiology. Adopting a landscape-focused systems per-spective on the problem facilitates the identification of the most important commonalities and differences, guiding both science and policy, and helps to identify elements of the problem on which further research is needed. More generally, our review demonstrates the importance of socialecological interactions and comparative approaches for landscape epidemiology.

The role of protected areas in supporting human health: a call to broaden the assessment of conservation outcomes

“…Finally, an emerging body of literature is trying to assess the role of PAs in relation to Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs). PAs shape many socio-ecological factors related to disease prevalence, including land-use, biodiversity, and socioeconomic conditions [49,50]. Hence, PAs may drive disease prevalence by influencing vector and host presence and by controlling human exposure to vector species (Box 2).…”

Characterizing social–ecological units to inform biodiversity conservation in cultural landscapes

“…One promising avenue to better understand such interactions is to conceptualize cultural landscapes as social-ecological systems, that is dynamic systems with interacting social and ecological components (Berkes et al, 2003). Given historically tight interconnections between ecological and social system components in cultural landscapes (Farina, 2000;Fischer et al, 2012), the relative dearth of simultaneous consideration of ecological and social system components via integrated analyses is a critical shortcoming in research to date (but see Alessa et al, 2009;Cumming et al, 2015). Methods to do so need to simplify the complex nature of social-ecological systems, but at the same time preserve locally important contextual information (L€ udeke et al, 2004).…”

Pathogens, disease, and the social-ecological resilience of protected areas

“…The many complexities raised by pathogens in complex systems suggest a strong need for social-ecological systems approaches to landscape epidemiology (Cumming et al 2015c). Highlighting the indirect, cascading effects that are generated by cross-scale feedbacks and may not be detected by deterministic and linear approaches, Palomo et al (2014) have considered how systems thinking and social-ecological theory may be useful to the management of protected areas for disease outbreaks.…”