IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0005225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring a One Health approach to sustainability with international One Health and Global Health Security experts – differences, similarities and trade-offs between sectors

Author

Listed:
  • Osman Ahmed Dar
  • Hassaan Zahid
  • Max Claron
  • Neil Spicer
  • Mishal Khan

Abstract

Sustainability in global health remains inconsistently defined and operationalised across human, animal, and environmental health sectors. As the One Health approach gains global traction—particularly in addressing complex, ‘wicked’ health problems such as pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, and ecosystem degradation—there is a growing need for shared conceptualisations of sustainability to support cross-sectoral collaboration and ultimately, long-term impacts. This study explores how One Health and health security experts from diverse disciplines understand and construct the meaning and determinants of sustainability. We conducted a qualitative study underpinned by the Social Construction Framework (SCF) through semi-structured interviews with 29 global experts from human, animal, and environmental health domains. Participants were purposively sampled from key technical advisory bodies, including the One Health High-Level Expert Panel, the World Bank Pandemic Fund, and the Quadripartite. Data were collected via online interviews between July 2023 and March 2024, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using an inductive approach. Participants offered multi-dimensional definitions of sustainability; they distinguished between process-oriented (e.g., institutional longevity, financing, local ownership) and outcome-oriented (e.g., ecological regeneration, intergenerational well-being) views. Human health experts emphasised health system continuity, while animal health participants highlighted economic and disease control outcomes. Environmental experts framed sustainability around planetary resilience and equity. Cross-sectoral convergence was found on key determinants: political commitment, stable financing, workforce capacity, community ownership, and adaptability. Our findings underscore that sustainability in One Health is a socially constructed and sectorally influenced concept. Differences in framing, deservingness, and measurement priorities reflect different sectoral mandates, but also reveal potential trade-offs and synergies. To operationalise One Health effectively, an integrated sustainability framework is needed - one that aligns sectoral priorities, recognises diverse metrics, and fosters long-term, adaptive collaboration. This study provides an empirical basis for shaping such a framework, rooted in the lived experiences and perspectives of global experts.

Suggested Citation

  • Osman Ahmed Dar & Hassaan Zahid & Max Claron & Neil Spicer & Mishal Khan, 2025. "Exploring a One Health approach to sustainability with international One Health and Global Health Security experts – differences, similarities and trade-offs between sectors," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-21, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005225
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005225
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005225&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005225?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005225. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.