The role of connective interventions in the collective management of public-bad problems: Evidence from a socio-ecological system perspective

ABSTRACT

Managing public-bad problems is difficult and arriving at an effective collective response can be an even bigger challenge. Using a socio-ecological systems framework, we explore the role of communication-focused interventions in the management of public bads in six African case-studies. We analyse case-specific livelihood units, public-bad risk conditions, and threats, and the strategies to prevent and control a public bad. We assess the impact of connective interventions on existing risk governance systems and problem management. Our findings show that connective interventions enable people to define risk boundaries, learn about the costs and benefits of public-bad management, and develop capacity for collective decision-making and problem monitoring. However, connective interventions cannot work in isolation and require complementary strategies, and trust in broader governance and institutional arrangements. Our research demonstrates the value of the social ecological systems framework in synthesizing lessons and insights from diverse interdisciplinary studies.

KEYWORDS:

• disease
• complex problems
• livelihood
• interdisciplinary research
• public bads
• collective action

Acknowledgments

This article and the findings presented in it are based on research under the programme titled ‘Responsible life-science innovations for development in the digital age: EVOCA’ which has been financially supported by the Wageningen University Interdisciplinary Research and Education Fund (INREF). The authors acknowledge the support of the partner organisations who made the case studies possible: Rwanda University’s College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), Foundation for Sustainable Development (FSD), Grameen Foundation, Integrated Water & Agricultural Development Ghana LTD. (IWAD), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), International Potato Center (CIP), Kumasi Institute of Technology, Energy and Environment (KITE), MDF West Africa, Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), and Veterinary Services Kenya.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethics approval

The ethics approval of all case-studies was arranged through the research committee of the Wageningen School of Social Sciences.

Notes

¹ The Responsible life-sciences innovations for development in the digital age: Environmental Virtual Observatories for Connective Action (EVOCA) was a multi-year project that started in 2016. EVOCA was implemented with funding from the Wageningen University Interdisciplinary Research Fund (INREF). For more information about the project and its outcomes and impact we refer to www.evoca.com.

² Their research on connective actions emerged in a context of contentious politics, characterized by more individualized and technologically (e.g. social media) mediated processes.

³ For more details about the programme we refer to the programme website: https://www.wur.nl/en/project/responsible-life-science-innovations-for-development-in-the-digital-age-evoca.htm.

⁴ The dissertation of the 11th PhD project was not yet published when conducting this study, hence we relied on the analysis of individual peer-reviewed papers and interactions with the researcher for this case.

⁵ More recently, a less invasive practice called Single Diseased Stem Removal, which primary practice involves continuous removal of diseased stems only, started to become accepted as an alternative to CMU.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Centro Internacional de la Papa International Institute of Tropical Agriculture International Livestock Research Institute MDF West Africa Kumasi Institute of Technology University of Rwanda Wageningen University and Research.