Mapping the geography of disease: A comparison of epidemiologists' and field-level experts' disease maps

This paper examines differences between expert and field-level experts' assessments of the geography animal disease. Mapping geographical spread prevalence disease is central to attempt reduce incidence encourage preventive behaviour. Animal maps reflect values assumptions epidemiologists who construct them. Where their spatial representations conflict with those held by farmers local veterinarians, usefulness will be undermined. Whilst democratising epidemiological map making could broaden expertise required maps, little known about extent which imaginations vary experts (farmers veterinarians). To compare these perspectives vary, data were drawn from eight opinion workshops involving veterinarians in areas vulnerable Participants engaged three participatory mapping exercises, vulnerability endemicity area official Results reveal variations mobilities within experts, different locations depending on risks. However, perceptions, become less pronounced. These findings therefore challenge previous binary categorisations expertise, suggesting a more complex overlapping relationship styles knowledge. The concludes discussing policy implications for mapping.