IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0159041.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Added-Value of Using Participatory Approaches to Assess the Acceptability of Surveillance Systems: The Case of Bovine Tuberculosis in Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Clémentine Calba
  • Flavie Luce Goutard
  • Luc Vanholme
  • Nicolas Antoine-Moussiaux
  • Pascal Hendrikx
  • Claude Saegerman

Abstract

Context and Objective: Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) surveillance in Belgium is essential to maintain the officially free status and to preserve animal and public health. An evaluation of the system is thus needed to ascertain the surveillance provides a precise description of the current situation in the country. The evaluation should assess stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations about the system due to the fact that the acceptability has an influence on the levels of sensitivity and timeliness of the surveillance system. The objective of the study was to assess the acceptability of the bTB surveillance in Belgium, using participatory tools and the OASIS flash tool (‘analysis tool for surveillance systems’). Methods: For the participatory process, focus group discussions and individual interviews were implemented with representatives involved with the system, both from cattle and wildlife part of the surveillance. Three main tools were used: (i) relational diagrams associated with smileys, (ii) flow diagrams associated with proportional piling, and (iii) impact diagrams associated with proportional piling. A total of six criteria were assessed, among which five were scored on a scale from -1 to +1. For the OASIS flash tool, one full day meeting with representatives from stakeholders involved with the surveillance was organised. A total of 19 criteria linked to acceptability were scored on a scale from 0 to 3. Results and Conclusion: Both methods highlighted a medium acceptability of the bTB surveillance. The main elements having a negative influence were the consequences of official notification of a bTB suspect case in a farm, the low remuneration paid to private veterinarians for execution of intradermal tuberculin tests and the practical difficulties about the containment of the animals. Based on the two evaluation processes, relevant recommendations to improve the surveillance were made. Based on the comparison between the two evaluation processes, the added value of the participatory approach was highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Clémentine Calba & Flavie Luce Goutard & Luc Vanholme & Nicolas Antoine-Moussiaux & Pascal Hendrikx & Claude Saegerman, 2016. "The Added-Value of Using Participatory Approaches to Assess the Acceptability of Surveillance Systems: The Case of Bovine Tuberculosis in Belgium," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159041
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159041
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159041&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0159041?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. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    2. Nancy Johnson & Nina Lilja & Jacqueline A. Ashby & James A. Garcia, 2004. "The practice of participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(3), pages 189-200, August.
    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.
    2. Alexandra Sawatzky & Ashlee Cunsolo & Andria Jones-Bitton & Jacqueline Middleton & Sherilee L. Harper, 2018. "Responding to Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on Human Health via Integrated Surveillance in the Circumpolar North: A Systematic Realist Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-37, November.

    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. Wang, Jue & Aenis, Thomas & Hofmann-Souki, Susanne, 2018. "Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 364-371.
    2. Federica Cisilino & Alessandro Monteleone, 2020. "Designing Rural Policies for Sustainable Innovations through a Participatory Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Elena Pagliarino & Secondo Rolfo, 2021. "Examining Researchers’ Attitudes, Barriers, and Opportunities for Participatory Research: The Case of the Riso-Biosystems Project on Organic Rice," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Pawera, Lukas & Manickam, Ravishankar & Wangungu, Carolyne & Bonnarith, Uon & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Ramasamy, Srinivasan, 2024. "Guidance on farmer participation in the design, testing and scaling of agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    5. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    6. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    7. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Sara Gabellini & Giovanni Belletti & Andrea Marescotti, 2021. "Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, November.
    8. Yuichiro Amekawa & Surat Hongsibsong & Nootchakarn Sawarng & Sumeth Yadoung & Girma Gezimu Gebre, 2021. "Producers’ Perceptions of Public Good Agricultural Practices Standard and Their Pesticide Use: The Case of Q-GAP for Cabbage Farming in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    9. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Saifi, Basim & Drake, Lars, 2008. "A coevolutionary model for promoting agricultural sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 24-34, March.
    11. Kabiri, Ngeta, 2016. "Public participation, land use and climate change governance in Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 511-517.
    12. Vatn, Arild & Kajembe, George & Mosi, Elvis & Nantongo, Maria & Silayo, Dos Santos, 2017. "What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Yami, M. & Mekuria, Wolde, 2022. "Challenges in the governance of community-managed forests in Ethiopia: review," Papers published in Journals (Open Access), International Water Management Institute, pages 1-14(3):147.
    14. repec:cep:sticas:/184 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Krystyna Kurowska & Renata Marks-Bielska & Stanisław Bielski & Audrius Aleknavičius & Cezary Kowalczyk, 2020. "Geographic Information Systems and the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Sarah White & Jethro Pettit, 2004. "Participatory Approaches and the Measurement of Human Well-being," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-57, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. So Pyay Thar & Thiagarajah Ramilan & Robert J. Farquharson & Deli Chen, 2021. "Identifying Potential for Decision Support Tools through Farm Systems Typology Analysis Coupled with Participatory Research: A Case for Smallholder Farmers in Myanmar," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Hugh Ward & Aletta Norval & Todd Landman & Jules Pretty, 2003. "Open Citizens’ Juries and the Politics of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(2), pages 282-299, June.
    19. Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2008. "What influences agricultural professionals' views towards organic agriculture?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 145-154, March.
    20. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    21. Qi Rong & Liangfeng Shen, 2022. "Study on the Ecological Operation Model of Settlements Based on Social Network Analysis: Stakeholder Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-17, October.

    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:pone00:0159041. 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.