Wet market biosecurity reform

Three social narratives influence stakeholder responses in Vietnam, Kenya, and the Philippines

Bibliographic Data

ID19590748
AuthorsKevin Bardosh (0000-0003-2973-5708, University of Washington, corresponding author), Renzo Guinto (0000-0002-3181-0423, St. Luke's Medical Center, corresponding author), Salome A Bukachi (0000-0002-1931-1891, University of Nairobi, corresponding author), Trân Minh Hăng (Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, corresponding author), Marianne K Bongcac (0000-0002-3488-8832, St. Luke's Medical Center, corresponding author), Mara Ysabella M de los Santos (0000-0002-3196-0050, St. Luke's Medical Center, corresponding author), Caroline M Mburu (0000-0002-8460-9213, University of Nairobi, corresponding author), Jackielyn Abela (0000-0001-9775-3532, Palawan State University, corresponding author), David Kelly (0000-0002-0961-0257), Cecily Maller (0000-0001-8322-2124, corresponding author)
EditorsNajmul Haider (0000-0002-5980-3460)
Year2023
Volume3
Issue9
Pagese0001704
Publication date2023-09-06
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePLOS Global Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2767-3375 • E-ISSN: 2767-3375
PublisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1371/journal.pgph.0001704
PMID37672556
OpenAlexW4386470239
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited29

In 2020, Covid-19 led to global policy statements promoting bans and reforms to wet markets in Asia and Africa to prevent future pandemics. We conducted a comparative, exploratory qualitative study in 2021 in three countries (Kenya, Vietnam and the Philippines) to understand the social and political dimensions to biosecurity reform at wet markets. This included 60 key informant interviews and rapid ethnographic research in 15 markets, as well as a review of policy documents and online media articles. We found no evidence that the rhetoric of pandemic spillover that emerged in 2020 had any influence on policy or reform efforts apart from those related to Covid-19 infection control. Rather, we identified three main narratives that frame the problem of biosecurity and preferences for reform. The first, a human health narrative , questioned global framings about pandemic risk, viewed markets as sources for food security rather than disease, emphasized the need to strengthen the control of endemic diseases, and conceptualized health through the lens of ‘freshness’ rather than biomedical categories. A second modernization narrative approached biosecurity as part of a broader process of socio-economic development that emphasized infrastructural gaps, spatial arrangements, cleanliness and a conflict between reform and economic interests. A third narrative centered on local livelihoods and the tension between local market stakeholders and biosecurity and modernization efforts. This final narrative called into question the appropriateness of certain regulations and policies, including bans and closures, emphasized the importance of preserving cultural heritage and highlighted the need for collective political action to resist certain veterinary policies. In conclusion, wet market biosecurity strategies occur in the context of three contrasting narratives that emphasize different aspects of health and risk, and reflect different worldviews and interests. Within this context, there is a need for local government to strengthen market management and biosecurity in ways that enhance the agency of market stakeholders and strengthen local livelihoods and food security as part of a pluralistic and democratic politics

Agriculture · Biosecurity · Development economics · Economic growth · Economics · Geography · Livelihood · Narrative · Political science · Public relations · Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Medicine · Zoonotic diseases and public health

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access