Impact of stakeholders influence, geographic level and risk perception on strategic decisions in simulated foot and mouth disease epizootics in France.
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.
Université Paris-Est, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses), Laboratoire de Santé Animale, Epidemiology Unit, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Maud
M
Marsot
Animal Health Unit, French General Directorate for Food (DGAL), Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs, Paris, France.
Séverine
S
Rautureau
EPIMAI, Alfort National Veterinary School (ENVA), USC Anses, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Barbara
B
Dufour
Université Paris-Est, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses), Laboratoire de Santé Animale, Epidemiology Unit, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Benoit
B
Durand
D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle; D002418:Cattle Diseases / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000276:immunology; D003657:Decision Making; D004196:Disease Outbreaks / Q000662:veterinary; D005536:Foot-and-Mouth Disease / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000276:immunology; D029544:Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus / Q000276:immunology; D005602:France; D012306:Risk; D013552:Swine / Q000276:immunology; D013553:Swine Diseases / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000276:immunology; D014611:Vaccination / Q000379:methods; D014765:Viral Vaccines / Q000276:immunology
D014765:Viral Vaccines