Mapping the geography of disease: A comparison of epidemiologists' and field-level experts' disease maps

Abstract

This paper examines differences between expert and field-level experts' assessments of the geography of animal disease. Mapping the geographical spread and prevalence of disease is central to attempt to reduce disease incidence and encourage preventive behaviour. Animal disease maps reflect the values and assumptions of epidemiologists who construct them. Where their spatial representations conflict with those held by farmers and local veterinarians, the usefulness of disease maps will be undermined. Whilst democratising epidemiological map making could broaden the expertise required to map animal disease maps, little is known about the extent to which the geographical imaginations of animal disease vary between epidemiological experts and field-level experts (farmers and veterinarians). To compare the extent to which these perspectives vary, data were drawn from eight expert opinion workshops involving farmers and veterinarians in areas vulnerable to the spread of animal disease. Participants were engaged in three participatory mapping exercises, to map the geography of disease vulnerability and endemicity of animal disease in their local area and compare their maps with official epidemiological assessments of disease. Results reveal variations in the geographical imaginations and mobilities of disease within and between experts and field-level experts, and in different locations depending on disease risks. However, in mapping these perceptions, differences become less pronounced. These findings therefore challenge previous binary categorisations of animal disease expertise, suggesting a more complex overlapping relationship between different styles of knowledge. The paper concludes by discussing the policy implications of these findings for animal disease mapping.