RESUMEN
Land cover and land use have established effects on hazard and exposure to vector-borne diseases. While our understanding of the proximate and distant causes and consequences of land use decisions has evolved, the focus on the proximate effects of landscape on disease ecology remains dominant. We argue that land use governance, viewed through a land system lens, affects tick-borne disease risk. Governance affects land use trajectories and potentially shapes landscapes favourable to ticks or increases contact with ticks by structuring human-land interactions. We illustrate the role of land use legacies, trade-offs in land-use decisions, and social inequities in access to land resources, information and decision-making, with three cases: Kyasanur Forest disease in India, Lyme disease in the Outer Hebrides (Scotland), and tick acaricide resistance in cattle in Ecuador. Land use governance is key to managing the risk of tick-borne diseases, by affecting the hazard and exposure. We propose that land use governance should consider unintended consequences on infectious disease risk.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is a strong policy impetus for the One Health cross-sectoral approach to address the complex challenge of zoonotic diseases, particularly in low/lower middle income countries (LMICs). Yet the implementation of this approach in LMIC contexts such as India has proven challenging, due partly to the relatively limited practical guidance and understanding on how to foster and sustain cross-sector collaborations. This study addresses this gap by exploring the facilitators of and barriers to successful convergence between the human, animal and environmental health sectors in India. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted using a detailed content review of national policy documents and in-depth semi-structured interview data on zoonotic disease management in India. In total, 29 policy documents were reviewed and 15 key informant interviews were undertaken with national and state level policymakers, disease managers and experts operating within the human-animal-environment interface of zoonotic disease control. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that there is limited policy visibility of zoonotic diseases, although global zoonoses, especially those identified to be of pandemic potential by international organisations (e.g. CDC, WHO and OIE) rather than local, high burden endemic diseases, have high recognition in the existing policy agenda setting. Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration, a myriad of factors operated to either constrain or facilitate the success of cross-sectoral convergence at different stages (i.e. information-sharing, undertaking common activities and merging resources and infrastructure) of cross-sectoral action. Importantly, participants identified the lack of supportive policies, conflicting departmental priorities and limited institutional capacities as major barriers that hamper effective cross-sectoral collaboration on zoonotic disease control. Building on existing informal inter-personal relationships and collaboration platforms were suggested by participants as the way forward. CONCLUSION: Our findings point to the importance of strengthening existing national policy frameworks as a first step for leveraging cross-sectoral capacity for improved disease surveillance and interventions. This requires the contextual adaptation of the One Health approach in a manner that is sensitive to the underlying socio-political, institutional and cultural context that determines and shapes outcomes of cross-sector collaborative arrangements.
