Types of cases.

In a One Health perspective general wildlife health surveillance (GWHS) gains importance worldwide, as pathogen transmission among wildlife, domestic animals and humans raises health, conservation and economic concerns. However, GWHS programs operate in the face of legal, geographical, financial, or administrative challenges. The present study uses a multi-tiered approach to understand the current characteristics, strengths and gaps of a European GWHS that operates in a fragmented legislative and multi-stakeholder environment. The aim is to support the implementation or improvement of other GWHS systems by managers, surveillance experts, and administrations. To assess the current state of wildlife health investigations and trends within the GWHS, we retrospectively analyzed 20 years of wildlife diagnostic data to explore alterations in annual case numbers, diagnosed diseases, and submitter types, conducted an online survey and phone interviews with official field partners (hunting administrators, game wardens and hunters) to assess their case submission criteria as well as their needs for post-mortem investigations, and performed in-house time estimations of post-mortem investigations to conduct a time-per-task analysis. Firstly, we found that infectious disease dynamics, the level of public awareness for specific diseases, research activities and increasing population sizes of in depth-monitored protected species, together with biogeographical and political boundaries all impacted case numbers and can present unexpected challenges to a GWHS. Secondly, we found that even a seemingly comprehensive GWHS can feature pronounced information gaps, with underrepresentation of common or easily recognizable diseases, blind spots in non-hunted species and only a fraction of discovered carcasses being submitted. Thirdly, we found that substantial amounts of wildlife health data may be available at local hunting administrations or disease specialist centers, but outside the reach of the GWHS and its processes. In conclusion, we recommend that fragmented and federalist GWHS programs like the one addressed require a central, consistent and accessible collection of wildlife health data. Also, considering the growing role of citizen observers in environmental research, we recommend using online reporting systems to harness decentrally available information and fill wildlife health information gaps.从同一健康（One Health）视角来看，全球野生动物健康监测（General Wildlife Health Surveillance，GWHS）的重要性与日俱增，因为野生动物、家畜与人类之间的病原体传播引发了健康、保护与经济层面的多重担忧。然而，野生动物健康监测项目的推进往往面临法律、地理、财务与行政层面的多重阻碍。本研究采用多层级研究方法，旨在剖析在碎片化立法与多利益相关方环境下运行的欧洲野生动物健康监测体系的当前特征、优势与短板。本研究旨在为管理者、监测专家与行政部门落地或优化其他野生动物健康监测体系提供支撑。为评估野生动物健康监测体系内的野生动物健康调查现状与发展趋势，本研究开展了三项工作：一是回顾性分析20年的野生动物诊断数据，探究年度病例数、确诊疾病类型与病例提交者类型的变化情况；二是对官方实地合作伙伴（狩猎行政人员、猎场管理员与猎人）开展线上问卷调查与电话访谈，评估其病例提交标准以及尸检调查需求；三是开展内部尸检调查的时间估算，完成单位任务时间分析。其一，传染病流行动态、公众对特定疾病的认知水平、研究活动以及受深度监测的保护物种种群规模的增长，再加上生物地理与行政边界因素，均会对病例数产生影响，并可能给野生动物健康监测体系带来意想不到的挑战。其二，即便看似完善的野生动物健康监测体系也存在显著的信息缺口：常见或易识别疾病的病例提交不足、非狩猎物种存在监测盲区，且仅极少数被发现的动物尸体被提交至监测体系。其三，大量野生动物健康数据可能留存于地方狩猎行政部门或疾病专科中心，但并未纳入野生动物健康监测体系及其工作流程。综上，本研究建议，如本次研究对象这类碎片化且分权式的野生动物健康监测项目，需建立集中化、统一且可及的野生动物健康数据采集机制。此外，考虑到公民观察员在环境研究中的作用日益凸显，本研究建议采用线上报告系统，整合分散可得的信息，填补野生动物健康信息缺口。