IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0338167.html

Stakeholder priorities and conceptualization of One Health: Insights from fuzzy cognitive mapping and grounded theory

Author

Listed:
  • Evan F Griffith
  • Angela Opondoh
  • Catherine Kaluwa
  • Erenius Lochede Nakadio
  • Kipkorir Rotich
  • Job Ronoh Kipkemoi
  • Jonah Levin
  • Jacob Mutua
  • Siobhan M Mor
  • Janetrix Hellen Amuguni

Abstract

One Health (OH) has gained global recognition as a framework and practice for addressing interconnected health and sustainability challenges, such as emerging infectious diseases, food insecurity and climate change. Yet its operationalization remains limited, in part due to persistent differences in how OH is conceptualized across sectors and knowledge systems, including Indigenous knowledge holders and environmental actors. To address these gaps, we applied a mixed methods approach that combined fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) with grounded theory (GT) to examine stakeholder priorities and conceptualization of OH in Turkana County, Kenya. Thirty-six fuzzy cognitive maps were co-developed with community members, frontline workers, health, veterinary, and NGO stakeholders, then aggregated by group and analyzed using network metrics including normalized degree centrality and Jaccard similarity. Results revealed areas of alignment and convergence in OH conceptualization and perspective. Conceptually, the environment group map was the most distinct, while the health and NGO maps were the most similar. Environmental actors emphasized human-driven degradation, while community members described a pluralistic health system and the importance of wild foods, both absent from other group narratives. Shared priorities such as human and livestock health, nutrition, and water resources represent potential entry points for cross-sectoral integration. These findings demonstrate that barriers to OH operationalization are not only structural, but also shaped by differences in knowledge, experience, and problem framing across sectors and society within the socioecological system. Embedding ecosystem services, biodiversity, and traditional knowledge at the core of OH can enhance inclusivity and contextual relevance. Our integrated FCM-GT approach offers a transferable framework for participatory systems research, providing actionable insights for more inclusive and ecologically grounded OH implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Evan F Griffith & Angela Opondoh & Catherine Kaluwa & Erenius Lochede Nakadio & Kipkorir Rotich & Job Ronoh Kipkemoi & Jonah Levin & Jacob Mutua & Siobhan M Mor & Janetrix Hellen Amuguni, 2026. "Stakeholder priorities and conceptualization of One Health: Insights from fuzzy cognitive mapping and grounded theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0338167
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0338167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0338167
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0338167&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0338167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0338167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.