HESO 449: Ecohealth SDS

Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.

The field of Ecohealth comes at a very important time environmentally, but mostly politically. So much of our society’s resources are being put towards issues of the environment: policy reformation; public and private funding; research and development; focus in public and post-secondary school curriculum; media attention; countless charities, NGOs and NPOs; etc.

The idea of climate change and environmental degradation is not new, in fact if you look back to newspaper articles from the 1960s (and maybe even earlier) you will see headlines and news stories on the environment that are strikingly similar to news stories that you read about today.

Despite the amount of money put into environmental research and an increasing cry for human-induced change towards environmental issues, why haven’t seemingly progressive countries, like Canada, taken a strong stance on climate change? It could be because introducing policy that restricts Canada’s activity in the tar sands or our role as an exporters of raw goods is bad for business and possibly devastating for the government in power to become re-elected. This is definitely one of the many facets which attributes to Canada’s lack of environmental policy.

However, to take a micro approach on the issue, bridging the issues of health and the environment are beneficial to giving climate change added legitimacy to those who still refuse to jump on the “save the environment boat”. Changes in the environment as a result of human impact are variable depending on what part of the world that you live in; your socioeconomic status; ethnicity; gender; etc. And so, it is difficult for people to believe, or perhaps care, that environmental degradation is occurring.

In this sense, Ecohealth gets it right by drawing a closer relationship between the health of the planet and the health of human beings, and not focusing on merely the physical health of the earth, as most environmental campaigns do. The health of humans is tangible, personified, and internalized in most (if not all) human societies as the key to survival. And so, when the results of a “sick world” devastate human health, others are quick to respond. The instantaneous results of health problems, in comparison to waiting for the long term effects of a destroyed earth adds to the legitimacy of health over environmental issues.

To conclude, environmental issues can undoubtably gain more public legitimacy by riding the coattails of health, a respected, ancient, and integral component of human society. However, the idea of Ecohealth is also beneficial to health care projects because health causes can now too take advantage of the R&D allocated towards environmental research.

As I read through Chapters 1 & 2 of ‘Health: An Ecosystem Approach’, what struck me as most interesting were the three pillars of Ecohealth: transdisciplinarity, [community] participation, and equity. What first drew me to Ecohealth was the promise of a transdisciplinary approach to human health (and environment) and reading about the three Ecohealth pillars in more depth grabbed my interest immediately. I think that it’s this three-pillar approach that really sets Ecohealth apart from any other Global Health approach that I’ve encountered so far.

Health is more than just physical health. It encompasses social, economical, cultural, political, emotional, mental, and many other determinants that make up a person’s health. These external determinants of our environments – whether they be natural or constructed – have an immense effect on our health. I agree with the readings in that it is impossible to even tackle the problems in human health without considering the environment in which people live in. The two go hand-in-hand and therefore must be viewed together.

With such a wide range of health determinants, it seems almost silly to approach health through merely one discipline. I’m quite excited to see where the transdisciplinary approach takes us in this seminar, but I can’t help but be a tad unclear about the precise definition of a ‘transdisciplinary approach’ – even more so when considering its cousins ‘interdisciplinary’ and ‘multidisciplinary’. From what I could deduce from the readings, a transdisciplinary approach takes a variety of disciplines working together towards a common goal. Is this definition incomplete? I would love it if we could clear up these definitions in class.

After reading the first two chapters I think what sets Ecohealth apart from other approaches to global health is the recognition that there are no simple solutions to complex problems. In order to tackle issues like human and environmental health it is important to be working with a wide range of academic , non-academic and governmental resources to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the problems being faced and then work out the best solution possible.

Along the same lines, one of the aspects of Ecohealth that appeals to me is the involvement of local communities in the research and solution-building processes. It is often the case where researchers and NGOs go into countries to research and solve local problems without ever interacting with local communities. As Ecohealth projects point out by leaving out local participation not only do problems go unsolved but also distrust of larger societies sometimes increases.

As I read through the first two chapters I found the three pillars the most interesting aspect of Echohealth and what separates it from other approaches to global health problems.

All three pillars caught my attention but out of the three pillars I found the equity issue the most interesting and discussed problems that I have never considered. Especially because gender roles are widely different from culture to culture. Thus, including those aspects, I think is crucial for understanding the impact the environment has on human health.

Community participation I also found very interesting and crucial to any sort of sustainable development. Without the opinion of the locals it is difficult to create something that will be long lasting. Participation is part of the holistic view and I agree with the author in that there will be no development without community involvement. The challenge is how to go about including all the groups, researchers and specialists, community, and decision makers and reaching an understanding of what needs to be accomplished given the certain culture at hand.

What intrigues me the most about EcoHealth is how the approach is based on a foundation of collaboration. I agree with Megan’s response: it seems to be that there is a grey area between a multidisciplinary approach and transdisciplinary since both must involve some form of collaboration to be effective.
The multifaceted nature of EcoHealth allows for the knowledge of both scientists, important stake-holders, and policy-makers. Especially in a day and age where academic communication is becoming more interconnected, it is imperative that these groups take the next step in making pooled resources of knowledge useful tools to solve current global issues. The transdisciplinary approach exemplifies this and underlines that project planning may be incredibly time-consuming but is crucial to making a ‘tailored’ team and action plan that fits to a particular region. I found that this approach is especially useful in the planning stages of a project I helped co-initiate, Mission Against Malaria. Most of our Directors have been in the working field for over 25 years from various disciplines: family medicine in Canada, pediatric medicine in Tanzania, International ESL education, and mathematics. Giving insight into each of our perspectives has been invaluable in our current project of implementing infectious disease awareness programs in Tanzanian boarding schools; however, a transdisciplinary approach requires much supervising, a trade-off that is worthwhile when a group’s aim is to reach an expanse region of a country. This challenge resonates with me in that it is much easier said than done to assume that everyone in a group from varying sectors will all synthesize their pooled knowledge into concrete action plans. A great amount of human resources are needed to make these action plans and enable individuals in a team to be aware of their own strengths and limitations.

Active participation facilitates a group to reach a consensus and centers development on community involvement. It think this is crucial to not only directly responding to a population’s concerns, but also making a project sustainable and creating an atmosphere of inclusiveness rather than one of ‘outside aid’ as being the only solution. It is also invaluable to take into account equity and social roles in a community. Oftentimes, providing ‘band-aid’ solutions to an obstacle, such as malaria, barely skims the surface of the heart of an issue. Having that overlap of a region’s context, demographics, and sociopolitical status, while addressing the challenges of human resources, makes for a unique interaction between not only team members, but also community members with one another and their respective policy-makers.

Reading the first couple chapters of the text has allowed me to get a good sense of how ecohealth is defined, and as illustrated by examples throughout history and across the globe, we see how different regions and practices have benefited from complex, transdisciplinary approaches, where the more successful ones have drawn upon strategies in a way that is tailored to the issue at hand. What I find most interesting in ecohealth is the foundational importance of the three methodological pillars, as well as each of their limitations. It is in appreciating these drawbacks that, I believe, ecohealth-related solutions can be further developed to find maximally efficient strategies for environmental and health-related problems.

As April mentioned, I too find it intriguing that developed countries such as Canada are not as proactive as one might expect, or as one would like them to be when it comes to the issues of implementing more stringent environmental policies. Perhaps the competing interests of industries and organizations has forced Canada to take a more neutral stance on environmentally-related policies.

Organizing the ways in which the three groups (namely researchers, community members, and decision-makers) work with one another is one aspect that I believe sets ecohealth apart from other approaches to global health problems. To me, having such a variegated approach allows us to understand and appreciate that issues based on global health and the environment can arise from complex social, economic and cultural interactions, for example, and that one strategy alone cannot fully address the scope of any given problem. It was mentioned in the text that undertaking transdisciplinary approaches, however, have already presented themselves as challenges. In other words, having such a diverse combination of very different disciplines, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, as well as varying visions of how to approach ecohealth problems, stresses the need for a more systematic approach to organizing transdisciplinary research.

But, how do we go about doing so? Some possible ways could involve having defined protocols, or separate panels or boards, where potentially such groups can take steps towards addressing the issue of organizing multiple groups. This could be a class discussion topic, and it would also be interesting to look into ways in which this has been addressed in previous research.

My favorite quote from the reading this week is “the more we try to stabilize systems by external measures… the more we diminish their ability to regenerate themselves” (6).

I feel like what sets Ecohealth apart from other health disciplines and approaches is that it is inherently a discussion of holistic health. It is also preventative health instead of our most current popular paradigm of what I call “prescriptive health.”

Ecohealth tries to understand all of the factors contributing to the health of communities, from the micro level of cells and pathogens, to the complexity of the daily interactions of a community of people who are further connected to other communities far away that have their own cultural, economic, and resource conditions which affect them (thanks Globalization!). It also acknowledges the effect of the outsiders participating in the interventions and makes a point to include that in the planning dialouge.

Ecohealth is rightfully transdisciplinary, because everyday life is transdisciplinary. My general reaction to this reading is, right on, and it’s about time.

It’s time we realize that everything is connected. It always has been. The only reason we must use the term transdisciplinary is because humans made “disciplines” out of life and now we must mend that error, along with many others!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SADPuUYF_4I&feature=related

What sets Ecohealth apart from other approaches to global health problems is the realization that human health is closely linked to the health of the environment which people live. Unlike other approaches, the research framework of Ecohealth – the trandisciplinary approach – is introduced progressively rather than established in the beginning, and that the solutions to health problems are emerged through the integration of knowledge of specialists of different disciplines and participation of local community members rather than by a small group of scientists.

What stood out to me the most in the field of Ecohealth is that this holistic, dynamic approach actually places human beings at the centre. This anthropocentric approach may seem contradictory to its title “Ecohealth.” It is important for people to realize that to maintain human health which is for the benefit of ourselves, we need to take a holistic approach to consider all factors that influence human health.

I agree with Jean Lebel, the author of the book, that simply working on environmental protection and excluding human factors is no longer adequate. Similarly, the biomedical approach which emphasizes on treating pathologies but not considering the root causes of these diseases (90% due to environmental factors) can only solve problems temporarily. To effectively resolve global health problem that is caused by the many interactions between different components in the ecosystem, Ecohealth is needed to be taken. Although this approach is a time-consuming process and requires a concerted effort from nearly everyone within the community, it is the only method that is proven to have lasting effect on both environmental and human health. Moreover, an additional benefit of this approach due to its transdisciplinary framework is that it continuously reminds the community that everyone has an equal share of the responsibility of ecosystem health.

What strikes me when reading the chapters as the most interesting in the field of Ecohealth is that this field of research is based on “participation of researchers, community members and decision makers.” It involves a wide rang of members with different background and thus different perspectives and that is very important when trying to find a solution to complex and interconnected problems.
The chapter further elaborates on the “three methodological pillars of transdisciplinarity, participation and equity” and these sets Ecohealth apart from other approaches to global health problems. An important aspect of transdisciplinary approach that is mentioned in the chapter is that it includes not only the researcher and scientists but it also includes other people and community members that have important role in decision making processes and the outcome. Like any other form of collaboration, this approach has many benefits and some challenges to overcome and it is different from other forms of collaboration mentioned in the chapter such as interdisciplinary, unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach.
As I learned from reading this chapter, transdisciplinary approach is unique which gathers knowledge from different discipline and takes on a common language in order to establish a solution to a problem. This approach recognizes the complexity involved between many component of ecosystem such as environment and socioeconomic as a determinants of health and how there is no simple solution to such problems. In order to find a suitable solution we need to include all aspects of problem and look at different approaches from all angles.
I really like the link “little boxes” Thanks Amy! I am looking forward to tonight lecture to learn more about the Transdisciplinary approach.

The points that have been raised so far about the three pillars of the ecohealth approach as well as a more holistic consideration of global health as something that encompasses both environmental health and human health and all of their interactions are the primary reasons for my interest in the approach. I think we should, however, be wary of using the ecohealth approach as something more than just a term or catch-phrase.
For example, over the past decade, “global health” has become a somewhat preferred term as compared to “international health.” Primarily due to the “North helping the South” connotations that go along with International Health instead of a more collaborative approach. However, many “Global Health” initiatives continue to employ a vertical to “help” the poor. It would serve us well to consider Natasha’s question: How do we go about organizing transdisciplinary research, so that it’s more than just a term?
A quick look at ethics codes of conducts across disciplines can demonstrate some of the differences that exist between disciplines, so how can we create an environment where researchers, professionals, students, community members, and decision makers in various disciplines to come together and create a coherent goal and purpose? What lessons can we learn from previous global health/ international health initiatives that will help us to more effectively frame ecohealth initiatives?
Tonight’s class will help us explore some of these questions and more!
PS. Amy, the claymation was much appreciated 🙂

What strikes me the most interesting in Ecohealth is the emphasis on the three pillars of health that connect the environment, economy, and community needs. It is truly a holistic approach bringing awareness to the underlying causes the environmental and societal problems we see today. The first couple chapters stress on the fact that the Ecohealth approach is extremely time-consuming and requires a great amount of patience and cooperation from the stakeholders involved. We live in a period where we rely on short-term results and quick-fixes to out solutions; however, it is becoming apparent that the externalities from these approaches are creating bigger problems far beyond our capacity to find solutions. Moreover, these consequences are increasing at an exponential rate, in which society can’t even predict what they should prepare themselves for. This brings us back to the importance of the Ecohealth ideology that can shift present paradigms over to a holistic level of understanding, instead of the “compartmentalized” approaches we have today.

Ecohealth is set apart from other approaches to global health problems in the sense that it focuses on transdisciplinary involvement of participants. As a result, not only are government or key stakeholders hold main power on decision-making, but members from all levels of society will have the opportunity to contribute their perspectives. What may seem like a slower approach to community and intervention planning, may in the long run lead to more successful systems established.

I think the more participatory model of ecohealth research is a base for significant improvement in local and global relationships, which are so often characterized by inequity. While this model further complicates research by integrating so many approaches and opinions, and likely takes longer to finish, it ultimately has potential for a more “sustainable” outcome. Not only can an Ecohealth approach solve the given problem at hand, but it can also forge new relationships between members of a community, academics, specialists, NGOs and the government.

These chapter helped me gain a better understanding of not only Ecohealth, but also of the concept of sustainable development and how it can work. In this context, it seems that sustainable development is less about developing communities to more closely match Western standards of modernity, but is more about making improvements in the relationships between human and ecological relationships in order to improve their overall health.

As others have noted, an Ecohealth approach could be highly useful in the Canadian context, as well as in other “developed” nations. The examples in the first 2 chapters referred to Ecohealth research taking place in less-developed places. One Canadian reality that an Ecohealth approach to sustainable development could to be particularly useful would be in terms of First Nations and Canadian government/wider society relations.

I think the more participatory model of ecohealth research is a base for significant improvement in local and global relationships, which are so often characterized by inequity. While this model further complicates research by integrating so many approaches and opinions, and likely takes longer to finish, it ultimately has potential for a more “sustainable” outcome. Not only can an Ecohealth approach solve the given problem at hand, but it can also forge new relationships between members of a community, academics, specialists, NGOs and the government.

These chapter helped me gain a better understanding of not only Ecohealth, but also of the concept of sustainable development and how it can work. In this context, it seems that sustainable development is less about developing communities to more closely match Western standards of modernity, but is more about making improvements in the relationships between human and ecological relationships in order to improve their overall health.

The examples of Ecohealth research listed in the first two chapters of our reading referred to cases in “developing” nations. As others have noted in their comments, this approach to research and solving social and ecological problems could be very beneficial to Canada and other “developed” nations. For instance, in the Canadian context, an Ecohealth approach could be particularly useful in improving First Nations/Canadian government relations.

Please delete my post in the other tab. It was meant for this tab isntead. I didn’t know where to comment. Thanks.

My answers weren’t adressing the two posted questions because I wasn’t aware of them… sorry.

Where begins environment; where end us. The boundaries between society and environment have thinned during the past decade, and the social behavioral pattern of the global community has improved with great variation. This variation shows each country’s understanding in the connections between health and sustainable development as well their moral values toward nature and other human beings.

To the opponents of this argument, who believes in an equation more in the likes of:

1. economic health = human health
2. health of technological advancement = human health

this article will sure sound almost nonsensical, unless their perception of the environment not as a realm of wilderness, but as the every molecule of air their breath, as the every spec of protein they ingest can be changed. I believe that the failure of the global community in understanding this crucial concept, is the sole contributor to the numerous ecohealth problems which are occurring today.

I like the idea of approaching health problems from multiple disciplines and realizing that the medical angle isn’t the only one, or even the most helpful. It is great that Ecohealth recognizes the need for cooperation with people of almost every type of profession to end some big world problems. It can really get to the root of the problems, not just temporarily cover them up. Transdisciplinarity, participation and equity are really important to tackle a many-sided problem. Sustainable development is my favorite part of the approach. Making it important that the fix stays and the bandaid doesn’t come flying off! Enduring resolutions would obviously be most helpful and if the system set up to help a community/problem is self sustaining and can hold up over the years, it is only going to do more good.

When I came into this class, I had no idea what Ecohealth was. Now that some time has passed and I am fully aware of the topic, I would say it is by far one of the best and efficient approaches. This is mainly because of its unique aspect of including every one in decision makings; from the community members, the researchers and the decision makers. This allows for better, more precise solutions that will not only work well, but will also take the community into consideration as well to keep the ecosystem in equilibrium state.

Oops I posted the answer to the third question in the UN think tank. To compare the ecohealth approach with the global approach, I’d like to think the global approach as something that encompasses a bigger picture, like a large scaled vision. As an ecohealth approach, we try to break down the problem into sub fields like economics, sociology, ecology etc. until the problem is irreducible. This simplifies complex problems and invites sub field experts to participate in the solution process. One field can be used to reinforce what another field lacks. Together they maximize the skills and strengths of each individual field. This is the idea behind the pillar of transdiciplinarity.