Trade-offs among human, animal, and environmental health hinder the uniform progress of global One Health

The One Health (OH) approach, integrating aspects of human, animal, and environmental health, still lacks robustly quantified insights into its complex relationships. To fill this knowledge gap, we devised a comprehensive assessment scheme for OH to assess its progress, synergies, trade-offs, and priority targets. From 2000 to 2020, we find evidence for global progress toward OH, albeit uneven, with its average score rising from 61.6 to 65.5, driven primarily by better human health although environmental health lags. Despite synergies prevalent within and between the three health dimensions, over half of the world's countries, mainly low-income ones, still incur substantial trade-offs impeding OH's advancement, especially between animal and environmental health. Our in-depth analysis of synergy and trade-off networks reveals that maternal, newborn, and child health are critical synergistic targets, whereas biodiversity and land resources dominate trade-offs. We provide key information for the synergetic and uniform development of global OH and policymaking.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
iScience
Published
2024-11-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.111357
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Zoonotic diseases and public health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.17

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trade-offs among human, animal, and environmental health hinder the uniform progress of global One Health

Junze Zhang, Prajal Pradhan, Kai Wu, Min Chen et al.
4 citations
iScience
Zoonotic diseases and public health
2.17
article

Trade-offs among human, animal, and environmental health hinder the uniform progress of global One Health

Junze Zhang, Prajal Pradhan, Kai Wu, Min Chen, Hui‐Hui Lin, Jianhua Lin, Jia Meng, Min Cao, Ya Tian, Zonghan Li, Shengjie Lai, Bojie Fu
article en
4 citations

Abstract

The One Health (OH) approach, integrating aspects of human, animal, and environmental health, still lacks robustly quantified insights into its complex relationships. To fill this knowledge gap, we devised a comprehensive assessment scheme for OH to assess its progress, synergies, trade-offs, and priority targets. From 2000 to 2020, we find evidence for global progress toward OH, albeit uneven, with its average score rising from 61.6 to 65.5, driven primarily by better human health although environmental health lags. Despite synergies prevalent within and between the three health dimensions, over half of the world's countries, mainly low-income ones, still incur substantial trade-offs impeding OH's advancement, especially between animal and environmental health. Our in-depth analysis of synergy and trade-off networks reveals that maternal, newborn, and child health are critical synergistic targets, whereas biodiversity and land resources dominate trade-offs. We provide key information for the synergetic and uniform development of global OH and policymaking.

iScienceVol. 27(12)
Nanjing Normal University (CN), Nanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command (CN), Leibniz Association (DE), University of Southampton (GB), Jiangxi Normal University (CN), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE), Nanjing University (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Academy of Space Technology, Jiangxi Normal University, European Research Council, National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Zoonotic diseases and public health
2.17
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.