RESUMO
Introduction: COVID-19 acutely shocked both socio-economic and food systems in 2020. We investigated the impact of COVID-19 on production and consumption of gardened produce, backyard poultry, wild game and fish, and foraged mushrooms, berries, and other plants in New York State, aiming to understand crisis influenced food choice and motivations, including food security. Methods: We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey in October-December 2020 with a convenience sample of participants (n = 505) with an interest in gardening, poultry rearing, foraging, hunting, and/or fishing from six counties in upstate New York. We recruited through the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Cornell Cooperative Extension, and other relevant email and social media pages. Results: Across the wild and backyard food production strategies, 4.0-14.3% of respondents reported engaging for the first time and 39.6-45.7% reported increased production (a little or a lot more), and 31.6-42.7% of respondents' production was the same as the previous year. Consumption of foods produced was widespread, including fruit and vegetables (97.6% of producers also consumed), backyard eggs (92.7%), and foraged foods (93.8%). For meats, a majority consumed backyard poultry meat (51.2%), wild-caught fish (69.7%), and wild game they hunted (80.1%). The frequency of consumption of fruit and vegetables (average of 13.5 times/month) and eggs (16.4 times/month) was very high, while average consumption of poultry meat, foraged foods, fish, and wild game ranged from 3.1 to 5.8 times/month. The number of respondents who reported "have more control over food availability" as motivation to produce all wild and backyard foods increased from 2019 to 2020 (p < 0.05 - p < 0.001). There was also a significant relationship between experiences of COVID-19 related hardship (i.e., food insecurity, income loss) with gardening and poultry-rearing (p ≤ 0.05), but not with other production methods or with consumption of wild and backyard foods. Discussion: Our findings help to locate wild and backyard foods within COVID-19 impacted food environments, and describe food security as a particularly relevant motivation, among others, reported by respondents in 2020. Given this, New York State service providers can use these findings to tailor current future support for households exerting control over their own food environments with wild and backyard foods, allowing the state to be better prepared for future crises.
RESUMO
A team of interdisciplinary researchers undertook a mixed methods, participatory epidemiology (PE) based study as part of a pilot project for localized control of Peste des petits ruminants (PPR), a small ruminant disease of high socio-economic impact. Mixed methods research combines qualitative and quantitative methods, allowing iterative comparison of results to arrive at a more comprehensive and informed outcome. In this study, the use of PE and a household survey (HHS) resulted in contradictory results. However, the mixed methods approach also facilitated the detection and the explanation of bias in the HHS, which may have gone undetected and unexplored had only one method been used. Results show that logistical constraints leading to a failure to apply key aspects of the sampling strategy led to problematic gender/ethnic composition of the HHS sample population. Additionally, while PE findings on local disease and terminology were integrated during HHS development and training, there is apparent measurement error related to enumerator bias in HHS results, possibly due to insufficient respondent understanding or a lack of analytic clarity. The extensive nature of the PE, surveillance methodologies used in the initial site assessment, and formative research for the HHS allowed for a critical analysis and interpretation of HHS results as well as reflection on the research process. The findings of this paper underscore the (1) flexibility and utility of participatory methods, (2) the importance of mixed methods research in designing health interventions, and (3) the necessity of tight integration of study design with team planning for implementation of research in environments such as Karamoja, Uganda. If all three are to be achieved not only researchers but funders must provide these space and structure beginning in the study design phase. These findings are relevant in many places, but have particular importance for international, interdisciplinary teams working from various on-and-off-site locations with traditional or indigenous knowledge systems.