↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the Potential for the Environmentally Sustainable Control of Foot and Mouth Disease in Sub-Saharan Africa

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating the Potential for the Environmentally Sustainable Control of Foot and Mouth Disease in Sub-Saharan Africa
Published in
EcoHealth, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10393-013-0850-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth J. Ferguson, Sarah Cleaveland, Daniel Thomas Haydon, Alexandre Caron, Richard A. Kock, Tiziana Lembo, J. Grant C. Hopcraft, Bertrand Chardonnet, Thomas Nyariki, Julius Keyyu, David James Paton, Fredrick Mathias Kivaria

Abstract

Strategies to control transboundary diseases have in the past generated unintended negative consequences for both the environment and local human populations. Integrating perspectives from across disciplines, including livestock, veterinary and conservation sectors, is necessary for identifying disease control strategies that optimise environmental goods and services at the wildlife-livestock interface. Prompted by the recent development of a global strategy for the control and elimination of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), this paper seeks insight into the consequences of, and rational options for potential FMD control measures in relation to environmental, conservation and human poverty considerations in Africa. We suggest a more environmentally nuanced process of FMD control that safe-guards the integrity of wild populations and the ecosystem dynamics on which human livelihoods depend while simultaneously improving socio-economic conditions of rural people. In particular, we outline five major issues that need to be considered: 1) improved understanding of the different FMD viral strains and how they circulate between domestic and wildlife populations; 2) an appreciation for the economic value of wildlife for many African countries whose presence might preclude the country from ever achieving an FMD-free status; 3) exploring ways in which livestock production can be improved without compromising wildlife such as implementing commodity-based trading schemes; 4) introducing a participatory approach involving local farmers and the national veterinary services in the control of FMD; and 5) finally the possibility that trans frontier conservation might offer new hope of integrating decision-making at the wildlife-livestock interface.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 134 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 7 5%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 25 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 27 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Environmental Science 8 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 33 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,106,592
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#302
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,740
of 196,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 196,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.