Search for a command to run...
African swine fever (ASF) poses an ongoing threat to pig production and wild boar across Europe. Controlling ASF in wild boar builds a complex system with many stakeholders involved. Participatory modelling complements traditional risk assessments by identifying leverage points, revealing practical barriers, and supporting adaptive, context-sensitive management in complex animal health systems. To strengthen ASF preparedness in Switzerland, we applied participatory modelling by engaging stakeholders from two regions in the co-development of semi-quantitative system models for the anticipated control of ASF in wild boar. Through a structured series of workshops, participants collaboratively identified key control measures, their leveraging and hindering factors and potential consequences within and beyond the ASF response system. Within the model, control measures were prioritised based on their expected impact over time within the system. Across regions, the stakeholder-informed model consistently prioritized measures related to coordination, operational communication amongst stakeholders and risk communication to the public, and carcass search and disposal. Many of the top-ranked measures came from thematic areas not covered in that-time existing technical guidelines, reflecting the added value of participatory approaches. Across regions, influencing factors such as coordination structures, legal frameworks, and resource availability, including trained personnel and carcass search dogs, were identified as critical enablers for effective ASF control. The analysis revealed a growing emphasis on clear and centralised government leadership. Beyond model outputs, the participatory modelling process fostered trust, strengthened cross-sectoral networks, and enhanced co-construction of knowledge. These findings highlight the value of participatory approaches for embedding stakeholder expertise into disease control planning, leading to shared ownership of ASF preparedness strategies.
Published in: Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Volume 250, pp. 106808-106808