Interdisciplinary Approaches to Zoonotic Disease

Abstract

Zoonotic infections are on the increase worldwide, but most research into the biological, environmental and life science aspects of these infections has been conducted in separation. In this review we bring together contemporary research in these areas to suggest a new, symbiotic framework which recognises the interaction of biological, economic, psychological, and natural and built environmental drivers in zoonotic infection and transmission. In doing so, we propose that some contemporary debates in zoonotic research could be resolved using an expanded framework which explicitly takes into account the combination of motivated and habitual human behaviour, environmental and biological constraints, and their interactions.

Animal Husbandry Practices and Perceptions of Zoonotic Infectious Disease Risks Among Livestock Keepers in a Rural Parish of Quito, Ecuador

“…Although the direct human health impact of these changes in Yaruquí is beyond the scope of this study, extant literature highlights the potential role of rural-urban migration and land-use changes in the transmission of disease-causing pathogens. 7 In light of this recent migration and resulting change in livestock-raising practices, it is possible that our findings may not be generalizable to other similarly sized, rural communities near Quito or in neighboring countries in South America. For example, given our finding that veterinarian-prescribed medical treatment was a more common treatment approach for large animals, the reported decrease in the number of large livestock raised in this community may result in fewer veterinarian consultations and more homeopathic treatments than would be expected elsewhere.…”

“…Both preventive treatment (such as vaccines) and efforts to improve animal sanitation have been proposed as promising interventions to curb the overuse of antimicrobial drugs in developing countries. 7,29 Participants in this study were familiar with large-scale poultry or pig farms in their community and expressed both positive and negative perceptions toward these commercial operations. The vast majority of respondents commented on the strong odor from the use of fertilizer as the principal negative aspect of these farms.…”

“…Macrolevel factors of the risk environment included human migration, changes in land use (specifically the transition from rural to urban or peri-urban agriculture), and factors related to the built environment, such as the lack of public health infrastructure (e.g., sanitation) and urban planning/occupant density. 7,40 Microlevel factors included local environmental conditions as well as the psychological or cultural motivations for animal-human interaction, animal management decision-making, and perceptions of risk for disease transmission.…”

“…4,5 In addition to fecal contamination, the presence of livestock in the household environment can increase zoonotic infectious disease risk by leading to more frequent human-animal interactions and possible contamination of food for human consumption (see Figure 1 for a conceptual diagram of common zoonotic pathogens and transmission pathways). [6][7][8] In South America, small-scale livestock production is a common practice among households. Pica-Ciamarra and others estimated that 84.5% of rural households and 28.4% of urban households in Ecuador raise livestock.…”

Reported off-leash frequency and perception of risk for gastrointestinal parasitism are not associated in owners of urban park-attending dogs: A multifactorial investigation

“…Park management should continue to allow for unleashing dogs in designated areas, but focus on implementing responsible owner policies (Rock et al, 2014) to reduce hazards for animal health such as the burden of dog feces accessible to off-leash dogs. In designing communication strategies and allocating public resources toward park maintenance, social science methodologies and theories of risk perception and norms should be considered to maximize the potential for behavioral change (Keizer et al, 2008;Quine et al, 2011;Goodwin et al, 2012). For example, understanding why people justify leaving behind their dogs' litter and the characteristics of those who do and do not remove their dogs' litter would be helpful in the design of appropriate interventions to redress these and other behaviors (Webley and Siviter, 2000;Wells, 2006;Atenstaedt and Jones, 2011).…”