Fig 1.
Research sites include group and individual mapping sessions. Created in Arcmap GIS (10.8.2).
Table 1.
Participant characteristics, including location, gender makeup, and stakeholder group. Community frontline workers (CFWs) include community health promoters (CHPs) and community animal disease reporters (CADRs).
Table 2.
Makeup of each aggregated stakeholder map.
Fig 2.
The One Health coding paradigm (OHCP) includes socioecological conditions, action and interactions at multiple temporal and spatial scales, and health and well-being related consequences.
Action-interactions are coded across humans (H), other animals (A), and the environment (E). Solid black arrows reflect relationships between and among people, domestic and wild animals, and the natural environment. The dashed gray line represents feedbacks and causal relationships through which consequences reconfigure socioecological conditions over time, shaping subsequent actions and interactions in a continuous, dynamic process. Made in Creately (www.app.creately.com).
Table 3.
Structural characteristics for each aggregated stakeholder map. Driver variables have a positive outdegree and zero indegree, ordinary variables have both positive outdegree and indegree, and receiver variables have a zero outdegree and a positive indegree [35].
Table 4.
Spearman’s rank correlation to assess the relationship between sample size and structural characteristics across stakeholder maps. A p-value ≤ 0.05 is considered statistically significant.
Fig 3.
Panel A: Jaccard indices heatmap ranging from 0 (none) to 1 (perfect) conceptual overlap. The Jaccard similarity index is calculated as a/(a + b + c) where a is the number of shared components, and b and c are the number of components unique to each map. Panel B: Dendrogram derived from the Jaccard-distance matrix (1-J). Branch height indicates the maximum pairwise distance between clusters at each node.
Table 5.
Top ten components ranked by centrality across stakeholder groups. ASF = animal source food, CADR = community animal disease reporters.
Fig 4.
Heatmap of standardized centrality scores (z-scores) for components included in four or more stakeholder group maps.
Stakeholder groups included administration (e.g., chiefs, village administrators, community, community frontline workers (CFWs), human health (e.g., public health officer), environment (e.g., environment, water, and climate change officials), NGOs (e.g., TUPADO, USAID Nawiri, and IRC), and veterinary (e.g., veterinary officers). Higher scores (green) indicate greater relative importance within each group’s map, while lower scores (red) indicate lower relative importance. The “Max-Min Difference” column reflects the range across groups for each component, highlighting the most variation in perceived importance.
Fig 5.
Environmental stakeholder group fuzzy cognitive map.
Node size represents degree centrality. Green and red arrows represent positive and negative relationships, respectively. Arrow width corresponds to edge weight. Only nodes with centrality > 7 and edges > 0.5 are displayed for clarity of visualization. ASF = animal source foods (e.g., milk and meat). Created in Gephi (version 0.10.0).
Fig 6.
Health stakeholder group fuzzy cognitive map.
Node size represents degree centrality. Green and red arrows represent positive and negative relationships, respectively. Arrow width corresponds to edge weight. Only nodes with centrality >5 and edges >0.4 are included for clarity of visualization. CLTS = community-led total sanitation; WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene. Created in Gephi (version 0.10.0).