Throughout history, people have been creating maps to represent spatial objects. We naturally think in terms of spaces and the relationships between them, such as the location of a river, our address, our community, and so on. Thematic maps that showcase data related to specific topics, such as biogeography, health, and diseases, have become more prevalent in recent times, although antique examples from the Renaissance period can be found. It is difficult to think of these topics without picturing a map, whether it’s the spread of mosquitoes, nutrition levels around the world, or the local incidence of COVID-19. We have become accustomed to regularly checking COVID-19 incidence maps to see how carefully we should interact with others.

Mapping (in the sense of creating maps) requires multiple steps. Firstly, someone needs to gather data that will be referenced in space and time. Thanks to satellites and countless cartographers, researchers can start with a seemingly blank canvas (map) and add their own data. Another person may then use this data, presuming it to be correct and methodologically sound. The mapmaker does not need to know the original data gatherer’s intention. Instead, they create colourful maps and graphics to represent the data. The choice of map projection, of colours, and the choice of explanations or lack thereof – all this is part of one data interpretation by the mapmaker.

What is the nature of knowledge gained from the map?

As a reader, it is your task or rather your choice to hermeneutically translate this map and extract knowledge or explanations that are useful for you. However, the nature of the knowledge gained from the map is subjective. What you interpret from the map may vary greatly from what others interpret or what the mapmaker intended to convey. Miscommunications are inevitable. While some of these miscommunications may be harmless, others can reinforce stereotypes and preconceived notions about the state of the world. This can shape people’s realities, mindsets, and values (Wood, 2010 & Winther, 2020). Additionally, the social context that surrounds a map can be disguised as seemingly objective truths.

Does it make sense to showcase average differences between countries, even though the standard of living in bigger cities in Africa is comparable to “the West”?

A noteworthy example of how important context can be is the representation of Africa on many thematic maps. Within studying global changes and health, we became so used to Africa having “different colours than the rest” on thematic maps, whether we talk about nutrition, diseases, or education. The maps are more focused on showing and predicting, rather than explaining causal relationships (Winther, 2020). This raises the question of whether it is reasonable to showcase average differences between countries, even though the standard of living in major African cities is like that of Western cities. Furthermore, the categories used in maps, let’s say “no. of high-ranking universities in countries” are defined by some institution. This institution comprises a “Benennungsmacht”, a monopoly on setting categories of good/bad, setting indicators, and claiming to be “objectively right” (originally Bordieu, discussion at Mau, 2017). This approach disregards local individualism, and forces globally normed knowledge. In other words: qualitative differences are turned into quantitative inequalities. While this way of thinking is rooted in the realm of social science it has not quite reached the natural sciences. We could say that objectively it is better that fewer people are sick, or that some level of nutrition is better than others. But there are many cases where the categorisation, hierarchisation or metric is not inherently clear and may lack a rationale.

How does the reader experience maps? What consequences does this experience have in turn on the values and actions of the reader?

Another miscommunication stems from careless mapmaking and bad explanations of maps. This is particularly true for maps that are based on models, as it can be easy to misinterpret the information presented. Is this a scenario, a projection, a forecast or what is shown? Should I be afraid that this disease will spread over parts of Europe, or is this an external explorative scenario? Furthermore, there is a lack of research on the use of thematic maps in the fields of biogeography and health, which further complicates matters. A recent example of this is the discourse on “alarmist” colouring of Covid maps. Comparatively low incidences of Covid-19 were conveyed by a colouring scheme that some claimed to be harsh, alarmist and not appropriate for the situation. This is to show that maps have real effects on actions, going outside or staying home, feeling safe or scared, showcasing the power of maps.

Tom Sawyer, what’s a map for?

Ain’t it to learn you facts?

– Mark Twain

In this article, we explored some of the fallacies of mapmaking, such as misinterpretations and the institutions that govern classifying systems, as well as the formation of realities and their impact on our actions. Maps are a tool that represents a construct of what is out there. They can teach us about the nature of the land, like a picture of a landscape, but if we want to learn more, we must still go and visit the actual landscape. Maps can only capture what is measurable within our Western scientific framework.

Cartography used to be the interface of “art, science and technology”, with modern GIS systems we might lost the art, what does that mean to mapping and cartography? (Harley, 1989 & Winther, 2020).

Many of the maps we see today have lost touch with reality, as they are based on models or projections and have become more complicated as the data behind them has grown. Early maps only showcased single pieces of information, but advanced maps are now harder to judge and interpret. We need to be aware that maps are tools for us to understand and act in the real world. Without clear intent to be used in the real world, a map is just a picture.

What does this map tell me or someone to do?

Maps hold power and guide our actions, construct and overturn beliefs, and in the end, shape our perception of the world.

Thank you for taking the time to read until the end. I hope this text has sparked some questions and ideas, and I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Do you have any particularly good or bad maps in mind?

This blog entry was written within the seminar “Current Research in Health Implications of Global Change” by Dr. Stephanie Thomas.

References

Harley, J. (1989): Deconstructing The Map. Cartographica Vol. 26 No.2

Mau, S. (2017): Das Metrische Wir – Über Die Quantifizierung Des Sozialen. Suhrkamp

Twain, M. (1894): Tom Sawyer Abroad.

Wood, D. (2010): Rethinking The Power of Maps.

Winther, R. (2020): When Maps Become the World. The University of Chicago Press

The post All maps are wrong, but some are useful appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The last one and a half years have drastically shown how vulnerable mankind is on earth. The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the many problems we face today but also in the future. Since Covid-19 disease originates from zoonotic coronavirus, there is a strong linkage between humans, animals, and the environment. Experts suggest that the 2019 pandemic outbreak was not the last one to come [1]. In order to tackle the problem and to be prepared for the future an integrated perspective is required. This is where the One Health approach comes into play.

What is the One Health approach?

Created in 2005, the One Health concept incorporates a multisector expertise and follows a holistic and transdisciplinary approach [2]. Generally speaking, health refers to the wellbeing of the physical, mental, and social status. But because the health issues are broad and complex, the One Health approach primarily focuses on health crisis related to ecological and environmental drivers and underscores the interconnectedness of health between humans, animals, plants, and the environment where they inhabit. It holds that to achieve ultimate human health, animals, plants, and environmental health needs to be addressed as well. Health threats shared by people, animals and the environment including zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety and food security, vector-borne diseases, and environmental contamination are all common One Health issues [3].

Example of One Health – Antimicrobial Resistance

One example of applying the One Health approach in combating global health crisis is addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In order to protect humans, livestock and agricultural production from bacterial infection, drugs containing antibiotics and antimicrobial agents have been widely used across the world. However, the pervading use of antimicrobial drugs has given rise to the microorganisms’ capability to adapt to those drugs. Consequently, the antimicrobial-resistant bacteria continue to harm human and animal health. What is worse, the antibiotics provide opportunities for zoonotic bacteria to develop resistance genes while transmitting to human bodies via food sources (e.g. meat products), direct animal contact, and contaminated environmental sources [4]. Facing the rapidly increasing threat posed by AMR, transdisciplinary collaboration and intersectoral countermeasures must come into force, such as the One Health approach.

Following this transdisciplinary approach, several organizations raise awareness of AMR. For instance, the World Health Organization developed the Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS), which drives local, national, and regional action. Laying the main focus on the collection, analysing and sharing of AMR data on global level, decision making on different levels should get enhanced [4,5].

According to the latest report, 109 countries and territories worldwide have enrolled in the Surveillance System until May 2021. The Assessment shows that GLASS significantly helped to foster the development of national AMR surveillance systems. As next steps it is aimed to enhance the completeness and quality of data [6].

Outlook

Most likely the Covid-19 pandemic has not been the last zoonotic disease posing a threat to humans. Close collaboration of different domains will be a key contribution for solving and preventing further crisis. The One Health Approach seems therefore a good possibility to tackle health related challenges in the future. Especially the holistic approach entails many opportunities for solutions on the global, national and local level. However more applicable frameworks should be provided, in order to enable a better implementation by different stakeholders with varied interests and interpretations of the One Health approach. Effective performance of One Health initiatives at all levels could hardly be achieved without developing more coherent and endurable frameworks for the increasingly diversified practitioners.

References

[1] Zowalaty, M. E., & Järhult, J. D. (2020). From SARS to COVID-19: A previously unknown SARS- related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) of pandemic potential infecting humans – Call for a One Health approach. One Health, 9, 100124. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100124

[2] Destoumieux-Garzón, D., Mavingui P, Boetsch G, Boissier J, Darriet F, Duboz P, Fritsch C, Giraudoux P, Le Roux F, Morand S, Paillard C, Pontier D, Sueur C and Voituron Y (2018). The One Health Concept: 10 Years Old and a Long Road Ahead. Front. Vet. Sci. 5:14. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00014

[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018). National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. One Health Basics. Last viewed 23.07.2021 from https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/index.html

[4] Schneider, M. C., Munoz-Zanzi, C., Min, K and Aldighieri, S. (2019). “One Health” From Concept to Application in the Global World. Global Public Health. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.013.29

[5] WHO (2021). Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS). Last viewed 27.07.2021 from https://www.who.int/initiatives/glass

[6] Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS) report 2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

The post The One Health approach to mitigate global health crisis related to ecological and environmental drivers appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

For this SDG article, I decided to write on a more personal level. I look back to when the Covid-19 spread reached pandemic level and all of us had to self-isolate. During that first lockdown I wrote my first GCE blog post. What a year! Isolation, online learning, anxiety, and unforeseeable losses… Perhaps we can all agree that this entire period – which is not over yet – has put a spotlight on health and well-being, as we tried to remain healthy amidst the pandemic, and efforts have been directed to produce vaccines.

Besides our physiological health, the awareness of our mental health became highly important. Going through these intense lockdowns, may have brought to light previously unnoticed issues, and also caused new ones – that I wish we were all spared. At the end of the day, the whole world has been experiencing the complexity of health, that goes beyond the biological matrix, and the importance of taking care of our psyche. Within this context appropriately lies the third Sustainable Development Goal, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

The SDG 3 presents thirteen targets [1]. They cover a wide range of health issues, from maternal mortality prevention, mental health, prevention and treatment of substance abuse, reduction of illnesses and deaths caused by hazardous chemicals and pollution, to the achievement of universal health coverage. These targets are aligned with the World Health Organization’s definition of health, namely a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and a fundamental right for every human being regardless of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition [2].

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the third SDG was making good progress. For instance, by 2017 a reduction of 41% in under-5 and neonatal mortality in 118 countries was computed. Progress was also shown in increased immunization coverage, a decrease in HIV incidence, and improvements to detect health emergencies in the 196 States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR), as they applied the 13 IHR’s core capacities [3].

Because of the huge efforts taken to stop the virus during the current pandemic and limiting factors, such as staff and resources, other health issues have gotten less attention lately. For example, in around 70 countries, childhood immunization programs as well as other medicine provisioning programs for HIV and TB have been interrupted, and a rise in malaria deaths by 100% is predicted. As less than half of the world’s population is provided with essential health services, all the progress accomplished might soon be reverted [4]. Since we currently live in this reality, feelings of loneliness, fear, depression, anxiety, and many others can surface. That is when we should be gentle to ourselves and reach out to someone.

Mental health is as important as physical health. In the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region, mental disorders are considered as one of the most significant public health challenges. They are leading causes of disabilities, and they affect individuals in a way that they feel unable or less able to exercise their daily lives in many aspects, including education, employment, self-care, and social life [5]. Awareness and treatment of mental health can lead to prevention of depression, substance abuse, suicide, and help people to cope and fulfill their activities. In order to aid the population, the WHO and the European Member States have been working to promote mental health services, disseminate information, and implement strategies to strengthen support for the community [5].

Each SDG has its importance, and we know that they are not isolated from another, but interconnected. In my view, the SDG 3 is indispensable to all the others, and to the entire world. Our integral health (mind and body) is what allows us to keep standing, to develop activities, ideas, technologies, to work, to improve the world’s situation, and to live fully happy lives. Our health is also linked to the planet’s health, its capacities, boundaries, and all the environmental impacts that have been adding up historically. Nevertheless, with this post, I wanted to bring to light a struggle that sometimes can be overlooked by some people, but it is a serious and more complex matter than we may perceive. How mental health is recognized and dealt with can vary by country, education, economic and social levels. Everyone should be aware, respectful and supportive. So, remember to be kind to yourself and to others, try to keep a healthy routine, connect to people, pause, breath, reflect, and reach out to professional help. You are not alone.

References:

[1] Sustainable Development Goal 3: Targets and indicators

[2] World Health Organization – Constitution

[3] SDG Indicators UN Stats Report

[4] SDG 3

[5] Health targets

The post The SDGs Series (Goal 3): Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all appeared first on Global Change Ecology.