EcoHealth and One Health: A theory-focused review in response to calls for convergence

Harrison, Sarah; Kivuti-Bitok, Lucy; Macmillan, Alexandra; Priest, Patricia

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105058

Cited by 77 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been calls to “understand how humans contextualize their own health within animal and ecosystem health” ( Lapinski et al, 2015 : 54). Again, this is still often done wthin a biomedical framework, epidemiology, and with a focus on health related behaviours ( Lapinski et al, 2015 ; Friese and Nuyts, 2017 ; Harrison et al, 2019 ). Thus, though the idea of health can be seen to be inextricably tied up with concepts of the social, political, cultural, economic and spiritual as well as the biomedical, in OH research, the focus is oft on disease, which tends to be understood explicitly as a biological matter.…”

Section: Modern(ist) One Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As health research is often critiqued for adopting a narrow focus only on the biomedical aspects of health (or, more accurately, of a specific disease), the OH approach should be welcomed. However, as it is currently applied, the concept, especially its form of “One World, One Health” (OWOH), is regarded by some social science commentators as only superficially covering social, political and economic processes, therefore reproducing a western-centric biomedical epistemology (see the special issue of Social Sciences and Medicine in 2015, edited by Craddock and Hinchliffe; see also Friese and Nuyts' 2017 review of the integration of posthumanism in public health/OH work, as well as Harrison's 2019 comparison of EcoHealth and OH frameworks).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rethinking One Health: Emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages

Davis

Sharp

2020

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One Health perspectives are growing in influence in global health. One Health is presented as being inherently interdisciplinary and integrative, drawing together human, animal and environmental health into a single gaze. Closer inspection, however, reveals that this presentation of entanglement is dependent upon an apolitical understanding of three pre-existing separate conceptual spaces that are brought to a point of connection. Drawing on research with livestock keepers in northern Tanzania, in the context of the history of livestock policy in colonial and postcolonial East Africa, this demonstrates what an extended model of One Health - one that moves from bounded human, animal and environmental sectors to co-constitutive assemblages - can do to create a flexible space that is inclusive of the multiplicity of health.

show abstract

Section: Modern(ist) One Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking One Health: Emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages

Davis

Sharp

2020

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EcoHealth shares much common ground with One Health, providing systems-based ways of thinking around zoonoses, disease emergence, and pandemic threats [51]. EcoHealth is often cited as contributing a more nuanced understanding of ecosystem drivers of disease than One Health [52], though it is unhelpful to consider either as a superior tool for holistic evaluation [53]. In the studies considered for this review, EcoHealth approaches were most commonly used to explore land use change and disease; using the framework, Patz, Daszak (54) discuss refugee movements as vectors for Tuberculosis and Hepatitis B, Confalonieri and Aparicio Effen (55) suggest Nipah links to land use change and Lyme disease through increased contact with host diversity, and Kittinger, Coontz (56) explore interactions with snail hosts of Schistosomiasis .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positioning zoonotic disease research in forced migration: a systematic literature review of theoretical frameworks and approaches

Tasker

Braam

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases are driven by complex interactions between health, environmental, and socio-political systems. Human movement is considered a significant and increasing factor in these processes, yet forced migration remains an understudied area of zoonotic research – due in part to the complexity of conducting interdisciplinary research in these settings.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review to identify and analyze theoretical frameworks and approaches used to study linkages between forced migration and zoonotic diseases.MethodsWe searched within eight electronic databases: ProQuest, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed, PLoSOne, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, to identify a) research articles focusing on zoonoses considering forced migrants in their study populations, and b) forced migration literature which engaged with zoonotic disease. Both authors conducted a full-text review, evaluating the quality of literature reviews and primary data using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) model, while theoretical papers were evaluated for quality using a theory synthesis adapted from Bonell and Fletcher (2013). Qualitative data were synthesized thematically according to the method suggested by Noblit and Hare (1988).ResultsAnalyses of the 23 included articles showed the increasing use of interdisciplinary frameworks and approaches over time, the majority of which stemmed from political ecology. Approaches such as EcoHealth and One Health were increasingly popular, but were more often linked to program implementation and development than broader contextual research. The majority of research failed to acknowledge the heterogeneity of migrant populations, lacked contextual depth, and insufficient acknowledgement of migrant agency in responding to zoonotic threats.ConclusionsAddressing the emergence and spread of zoonoses in forced migration contexts requires more careful consideration and use of interdisciplinary research to integrate the contributions of social and natural science approaches. Robust interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks are an important step for better understanding the complex health, environment, and socio-political drivers of zoonotic diseases in forced migration. Lessons can be learned from the application of these approaches in other hard-to-reach or seldom-heard populations.

show abstract

“…In particular, the Canadian semi-governmental International Development Research Centre (IDRC) launched, in 2006, the Asian Partnership on Emerging Infectious Diseases Research (APEIR) involving leading government, non-government and academic institutes in selected countries in Southeast Asia and China to better understand and address the root causes of epidemics and to ensure pro-poor risk reduction and coping strategies (Silkavute et al, 2013). The APEIR network promoted multi-disciplinary policy-relevant research on emerging infectious diseases from an EcoHealth perspective, which examines human well-being in relation to the interplay of ecological and socio-economic systems drawing from the humanities and the natural, social and health sciences (Harrison et al, 2019;; Mallee, 2017). In its second programme phase, focus was on Southeast Asia's thriving and often illegal wildlife trade and its implications for disease transmission to humans, and other social and environmental impacts.…”

Section: Funding Infectious Disease Surveillance In the 2000smentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19: Learning from Past Funding Initiatives and their Dismissal in Southeast Asia

Sciortino

2021

eTropic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines philanthropic funding of past efforts to control emerging infectious diseases in Southeast Asia and China. The recount, based on personal insights as a foundation professional and a review of both published and unpublished material, shows that American foundations and other like-minded donors identified the risks associated with zoonotic infections early on – including from the same coronavirus family that is causing the current COVID-19 pandemic – and were later followed by bilateral and multilateral donors investing greater resources. At the cusp of the 2000s, foundations played a leadership and catalyst role in advancing a transdisciplinary agenda to better understand and respond to new emerging threats and in building the necessary individual and institutional capacities for regional and local disease surveillance. For more than a decade, this concentration of resources and approaches was recognised as having contributed to better preparedness. Gradually, however, funding initiatives declined in value and intensity due to several internal and external factors. This article argues that COVID-19 arrives in the midst of an unfinished donor agenda and that it is important to reflect on why philanthropic foundations, and the development aid community more generally, found themselves unprepared for the pandemic in order to draw lessons for addressing today’s crisis – and future outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases.

show abstract

EcoHealth and One Health: A theory-focused review in response to calls for convergence

Cited by 77 publications

References 91 publications

Rethinking One Health: Emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages

Rethinking One Health: Emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages

Positioning zoonotic disease research in forced migration: a systematic literature review of theoretical frameworks and approaches

COVID-19: Learning from Past Funding Initiatives and their Dismissal in Southeast Asia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About