Where exactly do the social and behavioural sciences fit in One Health?

At its core, One Health promotes multidisciplinary cooperation amongst researchers and practitioners to improve the effectiveness and management of complex problems raised by the interplay of human, animal and environment interactions. Contemporary One Health literature has identified reducing disciplinary barriers as key to progress in the field, along with addressing the notable absence of social sciences from One Health frameworks, among other priorities. Efforts to position social scientists as experts on behaviour change and health decision-making has helped to articulate a concrete role for progressing One Health collaborations. Yet, there are other equally valuable functions the social scientist has in understanding complex systems, like One Health. We make explicit the multiple and diverse knowledge contributions the social sciences and humanities can make to progressing the One Health agenda. Articulating these more clearly invites a broader set of interdisciplinary perspectives to One Health discussions, allowing for stronger connections between sectors, actors, disciplines, and sub-systems. This perspective piece identifies a range of entry points for researchers and practitioners to better utilize the potential contributions social sciences and humanities scholars can make to One Health goals.

Situating the social and behavioural sciences as key partners in One Health

There exists both narrow and broad definitions of One Health (OH) which draw upon a mix of global movements, disciplinary integration efforts and socio-ecological concepts to improve environmental, animal and human health (1–5). As a movement, OH is relatively new (circa 2000s), largely emerging as a response to the rise of global pandemics such as the SARS virus, and Ebola (6). However, the foundations of OH philosophy (i.e., the apparent links between animal and human medicine and the existence of social and political determinants of disease) can be traced back to 19th century pathologist Rudolf Virchow, and Calvin Schwabe’s ‘One Medicine’ concept of the 1980s (7). Consistently championed by the veterinary profession, adoption of OH approaches now appear in the international strategies of the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization (6).

While historically OH has enjoyed firm footing in biosecurity and public health contexts, OH frameworks continue to emerge more broadly across other complex socio-ecological settings including sustainable livelihoods (8, 9), enhancement of food and nutrition security (10), and non-communicable disease (6). This shift has enabled a broader set of social and interdisciplinary science experts to become involved in applying OH concepts to better articulate complexity, despite these broader applications of OH occurring at a distance from the mainstream.

While reference to the social sciences in OH is not new, there are renewed calls for its stronger and more explicit inclusion in OH frameworks and programming (3, 11). The ‘social sciences’ label has not always been formalized in OH agendas, nor consistently defined (15). In current OH literature, debate on how and when to utilize the social sciences in how OH is conceptualized, coordinated, implemented and evaluated, has deepened (12).

In principle, social science is a branch of science that examines human and societal behaviours, interactions, and structures. Commonly treated as a single discipline, the social sciences are a collection of distinct disciplinary streams, each housing a multitude of subdisciplines. From about the 1950s, the term behavioural science began to emerge to describe disciplines with more quantitative and experimental methodologies (e.g., psychology and economics), distinguishing these from other social science disciplines that relied on more qualitative or observational methods (13).

Despite the breadth of social and behavioural sciences available to OH, to date, only select characteristics of a small number of disciplines readily appear in OH discussions and these typically fall into the behavioural science family (11, 14). In this paper we contend that consideration of a much broader spectrum of social and behavioural sciences capability will better assist OH to meet its contemporary goals.

While the overarching goal of OH is to achieve optimal health for people, animals, plants, and the environment, multiple knowledge and practice gaps have been identified before progress toward this goal can be realized. Among these gaps, sometimes referred to as priorities, are included: improved conceptualization and programming to address system complexity; strengthened and more diverse empirical data collection and use; and enhanced sectoral collaboration and policy coordination (1, 3, 12, 15).

Additionally, the normative aspects of knowledge production and use in OH including efforts to decolonize research approaches and recognize the legitimacy of local and Indigenous knowledge systems has been identified as an outstanding critical theme to address (3, 14, 16).

In combination, the social and behavioural sciences are perfectly placed to assist OH in addressing these priorities. Yet, OH planners and implementers will first need to reconsider how they continue to perceive and utilize this capability in general. Social scientists share some responsibility for addressing this challenge and can themselves assist with advocating for their broader inclusion by providing both clarity and direction. This paper goes someway to addressing the challenge at hand.

Below, we make explicit the multiple and diverse knowledge contributions the social and behavioural sciences can make to progressing the OH agenda. In addition, we advocate for the inclusion of humanities scholarship to be recognized as a potentially valuable partner in the quest to advance OH outcomes. For the remainder of this paper, we use the overarching term social and behavioural sciences (SBS) to describe the broad area of science that we consider critical to advancing the OH agenda.

Conventional social and behavioural science contributions to One Health

The motivation to reconsider the full contributory value of the SBS is largely attributable to the realization that both global and local drivers for infectious disease emergence and resolution are complex and interrelated (1). Dynamic global change like geopolitical instability, increased urbanization, the breakdown of health systems, and impacts of climate change are now recognized as likely influences on human-animal-environment health dynamics (1, 17, 18). A lack of significant progress in meeting OH goals may be another driver to revisit the value of broader multidisciplinary cooperation (19).

Prediction of human response to risk, for example, is arguably the most recognized contribution of the SBS to OH. Presently, a highly visible (and valued) SBS contribution to OH involves psychological science, especially as it relates to risk management, risk communication and behaviour change. Often transpiring as knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) studies, use of these methods has a reputation for producing quantitative information quickly, a characteristic especially useful in fast-moving outbreak contexts (11, 20).

Equally, economics has widely been used to quantify the cost of OH diseases and less frequently to model the effectiveness of OH interventions, often due to methodological challenges. Ascertaining the efficiency of resource allocation is a key undertaking in economics and could be a major contribution of economics in OH planning, implementation, and evaluation if the technical challenges can be overcome (21–23). Arguably, these applications of behavioural science can deliver useful information for OH agendas, but they can overlook critical information that might for example, generate insights about context, conflict, and complex institutional relationships.

Aside from prediction and quantification, the social sciences can be applied to interpret, to empower, and to deconstruct, depending on one’s philosophical position on how knowledge is acquired and treated (24). In this sense, anthropology has historically enjoyed some engagement with OH, although its recognition as a key partner in OH is also yet to be fully realized (25).

There are various other facets of OH where stronger collaboration with a broader range of disciplinary knowledge sets would benefit. Understanding embedded cultural and institutional norms in disease contexts; or the effects of institutional dynamics on health governance; or the macro drivers of broader systems interactions, are all potentially valuable knowledge dimensions to OH advancement (16). For these data points, deeper engagement with sociology, anthropology, human geography, sustainability science, and other social science disciplines, which more readily employ qualitative methodologies for example, may be more conducive to answering a broader range of research questions.

Engaging the humanities as a valuable partner

An additional and important group of disciplines whose value is also yet to be fully realized in OH is the humanities (21). Not easily fitting under the social sciences label, ethicists, historians, philosophers, educators and legal scholars have distinct capabilities to enhance our understanding of health policy, health governance, and the broader institutional influences on health outcomes (26, 27). Often possessing skills in non-empirical methods, this group of experts can be instrumental in sharpening the theoretical, critical, and analytical aspects of OH research and practice.

The broad and varied disciplinary contributions possible

Moving beyond common representations of social scientists as mostly comprising of psychologists, science communicators, and economists, and adding humanities scholarship to the pool of valuable expertise, potentially unlocks the considerable capability needed to meet contemporary OH priorities. Table 1 compiles examples of attributes from a broader set of SBS and humanities scholars. These attributes are aligned to seven key goals, sometimes identified as knowledge gaps, or priorities of focus needed to advance the OH agenda.

Table 1

Table 1. Aligning the varied skillsets, methods and techniques held by social and behavioural scientists and humanities scholars, to address current One Health priorities.

The priorities span the research and practice spectrum and include: advancing empirical knowledge; ensuring integrity of knowledge production; reducing barriers to collaboration; refining the OH agenda and its framing; designing and facilitating learning processes; differentiating scale, sector and system; and expanding the methodological toolbox (1, 3, 12, 15).

In developing Table 1, we have resisted the urge to label individual disciplines as having the responsibility (or the expertise) for the skillset combinations identified here for two reasons. First, in complex problem settings, we recognize sub-disciplines can play a leading role in knowledge production and practice, especially in specific disease contexts. Second, we believe that branding one discipline as the gatekeeper or holder of a specific skillset would be misleading given our own knowledge limitations of the full breadth and depth of the social and behavioural sciences family.

We also acknowledge there is likely overlap across a number of these capabilities and skillsets and their interpretation and translation might differ according to the disciplinary lens applied. Table 1 presents examples of potential capabilities on offer through broader and deeper engagement with SBS and the humanities.

The significance of better integrated OH approaches

Two topical examples of the value of engaging more fully with the SBS and humanities when attempting to apply a more integrated OH approach include the global COVID-19 pandemic and the 2021 New South Wales mouse plague. In the case of COVID-19, ongoing societal impacts of health system pressures, the prevalence of social and mental health consequences of ‘long covid’, and continued disruption to global trade and transport systems provide clear entry points for cross-disciplinary collaboration beyond typical OH expertise (32). The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the necessity of cooperation to enable multisectoral responses across academia, civil society, government, and private enterprise including at multiple levels (33). The task of coordinating information across disciplinary silos was compounded by the urgency with which responses were required. Adding to this challenge were considerable gaps in global knowledge about disease transmission pathways. This complexity demonstrates the need for better integrated OH approaches incorporating the full contribution SBS and humanities scholars can make to health outcomes.

In the case of Australian mouse plagues, the full extent of the socio-economic and community impacts of mouse outbreaks on regional and rural communities is visible, but yet to be formally described (34, 35). Research is ongoing to measure the type, extent and severity of impacts of recent mouse outbreaks on Australian individuals and communities. Yet, international evidence suggests the prevalence of significant mental stress, often exacerbated by social disadvantage, has contributed to poor mental and social health consequences during rodent invasion (35). In addition, Australian media reports continue to draw parallels between the lived experience of mouse plagues and the aftermath of natural disasters [cf. (36, 37)]. As in the case of COVID-19, much broader systemic interactions which extend beyond zoonotic spread, and into social, cultural, political, and economic spheres, are yet to emerge [cf. (34)].

Where next?

In the same way that biophysical sciences can model health and disease spread to respond to global health threats, the social sciences in OH have largely been applied to predict human behavioural responses to events and to have influence on both prevention and management. There are however many more potentially valuable contributions that SBS and humanities scholars are able to offer OH. We have provided examples of some of these capabilities and attributes here, many of them suited to addressing issues relating to systems complexity, responsible science practice, and multisectoral cooperation – all identified as important to OH progress.

There are likely to be other possible SBS contributions valuable to OH that we have not identified here. While the OH community strives to better engage the broader SBS community to explore points of intersection, it is also the task of SBS and humanities scholars to assist the OH community to identify these connections. All camps will need to be present if cross-disciplinary integration is to achieve the impact it seeks in advancing the OH agenda.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

LC: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AM: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. WO: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. We acknowledge the Department of Regional NSW and CSIRO Health and Biosecurity for partial financial assistance to develop this paper and to CSIRO Environment for in-kind support.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Destoumieux-Garzón, D, Mavingui, P, Boetsch, G, Boissier, J, Darriet, F, Duboz, P, et al. The one health concept: 10 years old and a long road ahead. Front Vet Sci. (2018) 5:14. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Green, J. ‘One health, one medicine’ and critical public health. Crit Public Health. (2012) 22:377–81. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2012.723395

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Lapinski, M, Seegar, M, Sellnow, D, Sellnow, T, and Thompson, TL. Re-imagining one health: a perspective from social science. Metode Sci Stud J. (2023) 13:95–101. doi: 10.7203/metode.13.23821

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Lerner, H, and Berg, C. A comparison of three holistic approaches to health: one health, eco health, and planetary health. Front Vet Sci. (2017) 4:163. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00163

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Zinsstag, J, Schelling, E, Waltner-Toews, D, and Tanner, M. From “one medicine” to “one health” and systematic approaches to health and well-being. Prev Vet Med. (2011) 101:148–56. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Gibbs, EPJ. The evolution of one health: a decade of progress and challenges for the future. Vet Rec. (2014) 174:85–91. doi: 10.1136/vr.g143

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Woods, A. A “more-than-human” history. More-than-one health: Humans, animals, and the environment post-COVID. Edited by Irus Braverman. London: Routledge (2022).

Google Scholar

8. Arsyad, DS, Nasir, S, Arundhana, AI, Phan-Thien, K-Y, Toribio, J-A, McMahon, P, et al. A one health exploration of the reasons for low cocoa productivity in West Sulawesi. One Health. (2019) 8:100107. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2019.100107

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Rüegg, SR, Buttigieg, SC, Goutard, FL, Binot, A, Morand, S, Thys, S, et al. Concepts and experiences in framing, integration and evaluation of one health and eco health front. Vet Sci. (2019) 6:155. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00155

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Alders, R., Aongolo, A., Bagnol, B., De Bruyn, J., Kimboka, S., Kocj, R., et al. (2014). Planet@Risk, 2, Special Issue on One Health (Part I/II), pp. 187–190. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00001/full

Google Scholar

11. Whittaker, M., Obrist, B., and Berger-Gonzálezm, M. (2021). The role of social sciences in one health – reciprocal benefits. In one health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches. edited by J. Zinsstag, E. Schelling, L. Crump, M. Whittaker, M. Tanner, and C Stephen. CABI Digital Library. 73–84. Available at: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781789242577.0000 (Accessed 25 January 2024).

Google Scholar

12. Zinsstag, J., and Tanner, M. (2020). Summary and outlook: one health in practice. In one health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches. edited by J. Zinsstag, E. Schelling, L. Crump, M. Whittaker, M. Tanner, and C Stephen. CABI Digital Library. 73–84. Available at: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781789242577.0000 (Accessed 25 January 2024).

Google Scholar

13. Greenfeld, L., and Nisbet Robert, A. (2024). Social science. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science

Google Scholar

14. Michalon, J. Accounting for one health: insights from the social sciences. Parasite. (2020) 27:1–10. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2020056

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Bresalier, M, Cassidy, A, and Woods, A. One health in history. In one health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches In: J Zinsstag, E Schelling, L Crump, M Whittaker, M Tanner, and C Stephen, editors. CABI Digital Library (2021). 1–14. Available at: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781789242577.0000

Google Scholar

16. Craddock, S, and Hinchcliffe, S. One world, one health? Social science engagements with the one health agenda. Soc Sci Med. (2015) 129:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Hassell, JM, Begon, M, Ward, MJ, and Fèvre, EM. Urbanization and disease emergence: dynamics at the wildlife-livestock-human interface. Trends Ecol Evol. (2017) 32:55–67. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Zinsstag, J, Crump, L, Schelling, E, Hattendorf, J, Maidane, YO, Maidane, YO, et al. Climate change and one health. FEMS Microbiol Lett. (2018) 365:1–9. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fny085

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Estebanez, J, and Boireau, P. One health: a social science discussion of a global agenda. Parasite. (2022) 29:17. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2022014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Berger-González, M, Pelikan, K, Zinsstag, J, Ali, SM, and Schelling, E. Transdisciplinary research and one health. In one health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches In: J Zinsstag, E Schelling, L Crump, M Whittaker, M Tanner, and C Stephen, editors. CABI Digital Library (2021). 57–70. Available at: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781789242577.0000 (Accessed 25 January 2024).

Google Scholar

21. Brandão, APD, Sussai, S, de Lima, A, Germine, J, Eltz, DD, and Araújo, A. Social sciences in one health: insights from multiple worlds perspectives on the dam rupture in Brumadinho-Brazil. Front Public Health. (2021) 9:649355. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.649355

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Okello, WO, Okello, AL, Inthavong, P, Tiemann, T, Phengsivalouk, A, Devleesschauwer, B, et al. Improved methods to capture the total societal benefits of zoonotic disease control: demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of an integrated control programme for Taenia solium, soil transmitted helminths and classical swine fever in northern Lao PDR. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. (2018) 12:e0006782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006782

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Häsler, B, Gilbert, W, Jones, BA, Pfeiffer, DU, Rushton, J, Otte, MJ, et al. The economic value of One Health in relation to the mitigation of zoonotic disease risks. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. (2013) 365:127–51. doi: 10.1007/82_2012_239

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Moon, K, and Blackman, D. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conserv Biol. (2014) 28:1167–77. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12326

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Steffens, TS, and Finnis, E. Context matters: leveraging anthropology within one health. One Health. (2022) 14:100393. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100393

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Degeling, CJ, Dawson, A, and Gilbert, GL. The ethics of one health In: M Walton, editor. One planet, one health. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press (2019). 65–84.

Google Scholar

27. Phelan, AL, and Gostin, LO. Law as a fixture between the one health interfaces of emerging diseases. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. (2017) 111:241–3. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trx044

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Reed, MS, and Curzon, R. Stakeholder mapping for the governance of biosecurity: a literature review. J Integr Environ Sci. (2015) 12:15–38. doi: 10.1080/1943815X.2014.975723

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Wallace, RG, Bergmann, L, Kock, R, Gilbert, M, Hogerwerf, L, Wallace, R, et al. Soc Sci Med. (2015) 129:68–77. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Chatterjee, P, Kakkar, M, and Chaturvedi, S. Integrating one health in national health policies of developing countries: India’s lost opportunity. Infect Dis Poverty. (2016) 5:87. doi: 10.1186/s40249-016-0181-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Woldehanna, S, and Zimicki, S. An expanded one health model: integrating social science and one health to inform study of the human-animal interface. Soc Sci Med. (2015) 129:87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.059

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Lefrançois, T, Malvy, D, Atlani-Duault, L, Benamouzig, D, Druais, PL, Yazdanpanah, Y, et al. After 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, translating one health into action is urgent. Lancet. (2023) 401:789–94. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01840-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Ruckert, A, Zinszer, K, Zarowsky, C, Labonté, R, and Carabin, H. What role for one health in the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Public Health. (2020) 111:641–4. doi: 10.17269/s41997-020-00409-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Randall-Moon, H. The mice plague and the assemblage of beastly landscapes in regional and rural Australia. Scoiologia Ruralis. (2023) 64:222–36. doi: 10.1111/soru.12461

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. White, J., Taylor, J., Brown, P. R., Henry, S., Carter, L., Mankad, A., et al. (n.d.). The New South Wales mouse plague 2020–2021: A one health description. One Health. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100753

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Shams, H. (2021). Mouse plague impacting NSW residents’ mental health like that of natural disasters, expert says. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-26/mouse-plague-impacting-nsw-residents-mental-health/100091634. (Accessed 9th February 2024). ABC News.

Google Scholar

37. Wallace, N. (2021). Plea for government to declare mouse plague a natural disaster. 9 news. Available at: https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/mouse-plauge-calls-for-australian-government-to-declare-natural-disaster-for-insurance-damage-cover/07042783-cf3a-47e7-87cd-921491ce60a2#:~:text=There%20are%20calls%20for%20the,won't%20cover%20the%20damage (Accessed 9th February 2024).

Google Scholar