IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0086323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Stakeholders Influence, Geographic Level and Risk Perception on Strategic Decisions in Simulated Foot and Mouth Disease Epizootics in France

Author

Listed:
  • Maud Marsot
  • Séverine Rautureau
  • Barbara Dufour
  • Benoit Durand

Abstract

Comparison of control strategies against animal infectious diseases allows determining optimal strategies according to their epidemiological and/or economic impacts. However, in real life, the choice of a control strategy does not always obey a pure economic or epidemiological rationality. The objective of this study was to analyze the choice of a foot and mouth disease (FMD) control strategy as a decision-making process in which the decision-maker is influenced by several stakeholders (government, agro-food industries, public opinion). For each of these, an indicator of epizootic impact was quantified to compare seven control strategies. We then determined how, in France, the optimal control strategy varied according to the relative weights of stakeholders and to the perception of risk by the decision-maker (risk-neutral/risk-averse). When the scope of decision was national, whatever their perception of risk and the stakeholders' weights, decision-makers chose a strategy based on vaccination. This consensus concealed marked differences between regions, which were connected with the regional breeding characteristics. Vaccination-based strategies were predominant in regions with dense cattle and swine populations, and in regions with a dense population of small ruminants, combined with a medium density of cattle and swine. These differences between regions suggested that control strategies could be usefully adapted to local breeding conditions. We then analyzed the feasibility of adaptive decision-making processes depending on the date and place where the epizootic starts, or on the evolution of the epizootic over time. The initial conditions always explained at least half of the variance of impacts, the remaining variance being attributed to the variability of epizootics evolution. However, the first weeks of this evolution explained a large part of the impacts variability. Although the predictive value of the initial conditions for determining the optimal strategy was weak, adaptive strategies changing dynamically according to the evolution of the epizootic appeared feasible.

Suggested Citation

  • Maud Marsot & Séverine Rautureau & Barbara Dufour & Benoit Durand, 2014. "Impact of Stakeholders Influence, Geographic Level and Risk Perception on Strategic Decisions in Simulated Foot and Mouth Disease Epizootics in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0086323
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0086323
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0086323&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0086323?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael J. Tildesley & Nicholas J. Savill & Darren J. Shaw & Rob Deardon & Stephen P. Brooks & Mark E. J. Woolhouse & Bryan T. Grenfell & Matt J. Keeling, 2006. "Optimal reactive vaccination strategies for a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7080), pages 83-86, March.
    2. Neil M. Ferguson & Christl A. Donnelly & Roy M. Anderson, 2001. "Transmission intensity and impact of control policies on the foot and mouth epidemic in Great Britain," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6855), pages 542-548, October.
    3. Olivier Mahul & Bernard Durand, 2000. "Simulated economic consequences of foot-and-mouth disease epidemics and their public control in France," Post-Print hal-01952105, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Julie Rivière & Yann Le Strat & Pascal Hendrikx & Barbara Dufour, 2018. "Perceptions and acceptability of some stakeholders about the bovine tuberculosis surveillance system for wildlife (Sylvatub) in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rob Deardon & Babak Habibzadeh & Hau Yi Chung, 2012. "Spatial measurement error in infectious disease models," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 1139-1150, November.
    2. Thomas House & Matt J Keeling, 2010. "The Impact of Contact Tracing in Clustered Populations," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Tom Lindström & Michael Tildesley & Colleen Webb, 2015. "A Bayesian Ensemble Approach for Epidemiological Projections," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-30, April.
    4. Ian E. Fellows & Mark S. Handcock, 2023. "Modeling of networked populations when data is sampled or missing," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(1), pages 21-35, April.
    5. Zhao, Zishun & Wahl, Thomas I. & Marsh, Thomas L., 2006. "Invasive Species Management: Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the U.S. Beef Industry," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 98-115, April.
    6. Gramig, Benjamin M. & Horan, Richard D., 2011. "Jointly determined livestock disease dynamics and decentralised economic behavior," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Arens, Ludwig & Thulke, Hans-Hermann & Eisinger, Dirk & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2012. "Administrative cooperation and disease control in cross-border pork production," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 473-482.
    8. Ioannidis, John P.A. & Cripps, Sally & Tanner, Martin A., 2022. "Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 423-438.
    9. Don Klinkenberg & Christophe Fraser & Hans Heesterbeek, 2006. "The Effectiveness of Contact Tracing in Emerging Epidemics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, December.
    10. Krämer, J. & Farwick, J., 2009. "Schäden in der Landwirtschaft durch Maul- und Klauenseuche: Simulationsrechnungen für ausgewählte Modellregionen," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.
    11. David Schley & Simon Gubbins & David J Paton, 2009. "Quantifying the Risk of Localised Animal Movement Bans for Foot-and-Mouth Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-6, May.
    12. Edgardo Ayala & Joana Chapa, 2017. "AH1N1 impact on the Mexican pork meat market," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 32(1), pages 3-25.
    13. Pilwon Kim & Chang Hyeong Lee, 2018. "Epidemic Spreading in Complex Networks with Resilient Nodes: Applications to FMD," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-9, March.
    14. Wenting Yang & Jiantong Zhang & Ruolin Ma, 2020. "The Prediction of Infectious Diseases: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Dillon, Emma J. & Matthews, Alan & Thorne, Fiona S., 2007. "Foot-and-Mouth Disease control costs compared: An Irish case study," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7969, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Kompas, Tom & Ha, Pham Van & Nguyen, Hoa Thi Minh & East, Iain & Roche, Sharon & Garner, Graeme, 2017. "Optimal surveillance against foot-and-mouth disease: the case of bulk milk testing in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(4), October.
    17. Montazeri Hesam & Little Susan & Mozaffarilegha Mozhgan & Beerenwinkel Niko & DeGruttola Victor, 2020. "Bayesian reconstruction of transmission trees from genetic sequences and uncertain infection times," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4-6), pages 1-13, December.
    18. Larry Stikeleather & William Morrow & Robert Meyer & Craig Baird & Burt Halbert, 2013. "Evaluation of CO 2 Application Requirements for On-Farm Mass Depopulation of Swine in a Disease Emergency," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-14, September.
    19. Rich, Karl M. & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2004. "A Spatial Model Of Animal Disease Control In Livestock: Empirical Analysis Of Foot And Mouth Disease In The Southern Cone," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20015, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Wittwer, Glyn, 2023. "The economic impacts of a hypothetical foot and mouth disease outbreak in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 68(01), September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0086323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.