All For 1 : One Health for All

September 25, 2023

424

All For 1 One Health for All

S.P Mamatha^{1 &} Sarita ²

Abstract

Global challenges to ecosystem function and public health are interwoven, and they show how closely human and wildlife health are related. These issues are particularly urgent in urban settings, when social-ecological interactions are clear. Urban communities and ecosystems’ health and well-being are promoted through the One Health concept, which offers an organising framework. To be effective, One Health must take into account societal disparities in environmental disadvantages, exposures, and policy. All One Health interfaces are impacted by these disparities, including the distribution of environmental services and harms, the type and frequency of human-wildlife interactions and the effects of past land usage. Here, we evaluate the available research on One Health perspectives, identify areas where an environmental justice lens should be applied, and conclude with suggestions for future research. The urgent need for One Health solutions based on environmental justice principles to help create healthier, more resilient cities is highlighted by the escalating social, political, and environmental discontent.

Keywords: One Health, Pathogen, Zoonotic disease and environmental justice

INTRODUCTION

Our planet is becoming more urbanized, which presents both opportunities and difficulties for human and natural welfare. According to Seto et al. (2012), urban land use is the that is expanding the quickest on the planet, and by 2050, over two-thirds of the world’s population is expected to reside in urban regions. Additionally, due to the distinct habitat types, disturbance patterns, and resources that cities offer, species are frequently the dominant species in wildlife populations (Ducatez et al. 2018, Shochat et al. 2010). A complex set of problems for human and ecosystem health can result from the interaction of these features in urban systems, including heat stress (Heaviside et al. 2017, Jesdale et al. 2013, Mitchell & Chakraborty 2015), increased exposure to air pollutants (Morello-Frosch & Jesdale 2006, Tessum et al. 2021), and new host communities for pathogens (Murray et al. 2019). As global urbanization accelerates, addressing these health issues is essential to safeguarding the wellbeing of people, wildlife, and ecosystems.

Despite the broad significance of human, animal, and environmental health in cities, the majority of research on urban health is compartmentalised within disciplines like public health, ecotoxicology, and wildlife disease ecology (Combs et al.2022). Such compartmentalised discourses hinder our ability to address growing dangers to the public health (Zinsstag et al. 2012). Solutions with frameworks that are only partially focused may undervalue the interdependence of cities’ biophysical components, limiting the overall health solutions’ scope. A holistic, systems-level approach that recognises the connection of human, animal, and environmental health is thus required to address contemporary environmental difficulties and health concerns (Cunningham et al. 2017, Daszak et al. 2000, Lebov et al. 2017). Such a strategy must also take into account how race and class affect the frequency, hazards, and advantages of interactions between people, wildlife, and the environment in various metropolitan settings.

The health of marginalised communities is significantly impacted by societal imbalances in access to healthy settings, which are exacerbated by unequal access to medical care and economic opportunities (Nardone et al. 2020). For example, more prosperous areas frequently have greater vegetation cover in addition to more varied and plentiful plant and animal groups (Hope et al. 2003; Leong et al. 2018). Richer urban neighbourhoods have easier access to the ecosystem services that plants provide, such as environmental cooling, air purification, recreation, and advantages for mental health (Nesbitt et al. 2019, Nowak et al. 2022). On the other hand, disinvestment in low-income areas and communities of colour in the past and present has caused local environmental impacts that endanger both human and animal health (Morello-Frosch &Jesdale 2006). Environmental justice (EJ) is the equitable treatment and meaningful participation of all people in the creation, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies, regardless of their race, colour, country origin, or level of income. Health framework that does not incorporate or acknowledge environmental racism and social inequality is necessarily incomplete (Lysaght et al. 2017). Building collaborative and disciplinary bridges between the One Health and environmental justice (EJ) discourses is an especially urgent task, as income inequality is widening globally across urban development classes (Piketty & Saez et al., 2014). Doing so can subsequently inform interventions that prioritize and support more comprehensive solutions to the emerging health threats we currently face (Cushing et al. 2015, Jennings et al. 2017, Rüegg et al. 2017).

INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INTO ONE HEALTH

Although One Health aspires to be a transdisciplinary subject, Environmental justice principles are hardly cited as a primary factor Public health and the biological sciences, two fields that have traditionally contended with prejudice and racism, are partially responsible for the origins of One Health within the body of knowledge of Western science (Clark & Hurd 2020; Devakumar et al. 2020). Racial and ethnic health disparities have been exacerbated and hampered by the injustices brought about by structural and systemic racism (Clark & Hurd 2020). Therefore, in order for Environmental justice and One Health to be properly integrated, One Health must specifically address how societal injustices affect human, animal, and environmental health. This makes it easier to diagnose the various connections between the One Health framework’s elements.

DRIVERS CONNECTING ONE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PRAXIS

The absence of environmental equity along economic and racial lines subsequently stratifies health outcomes. The mechanisms by which these health disparities accumulate often stem from environmental quality, with urban green space and biodiversity often at the center of discourses in both the One Health and Environmental justice (Nesbitt et al. 2019 and Wolch et al. 2014). Recent studies have documented the benefits of urban nature (e.g., green spaces, biodiversity) for human physical (Hartig et al. 2014) and mental health (Bratman et al. 2019, Methorst et al. 2021). While parks, greenspaces, and green roofs are growing in popularity in many cities, the availability and accessibility of urban green infrastructure vary within and across cities (Wolch et al. 2014). Notably, in North America, wealthier neighborhoods that are predominantly White customarily have greater access to high-quality remnant forests and green spaces (Gerrish et al., 2018). Similarly, recent investigations provide palpable evidence to suggest that income inequality in cities predicts patterns of species richness and biodiversity. This luxury effect, by which socioeconomic wealth positively predicts richness and biodiversity, often means that neighborhoods with increased economic mobility have greater access to urban biodiversity (Leong et al. 2018). Granted, the intersection of legacies of residential segregation , temperature and aridity gradients , and heterogeneous patterns of urban development has the potential to dilute or negate the community-level impacts of the luxury effect and biodiversity are compounded with increased industrial activity such as brownfield sites and highways, both of which can promote cancer and reduce life expectancy. As a result, low-income neighborhoods and communities of color often shoulder both a pollution burden and an extinction of experience (i.e., reduced experiences with nature) that can simultaneously degrade overall health outcomes. In this way, unjust urban planning policies and natural capital can be considered a social determinant of health (Nesbitt et al. 2019). The confluence of these issues underscores the niche that the One Health framework could fill by incorporating patterns of environmental inequity to help pinpoint solutions for improving human, animal, and environmental health equitably. Doing so requires elucidation of the patterns of abiotic and biotic components that threaten health outcomes. Here, we focus on four contexts that exemplify infectious (i.e., zoonotic disease) and noninfectious (i.e., heat, air, and water quality) health risks in cities that are strongly influenced by economic and racial inequality.

Medically Important Arthropods

One of the main causes of the global health burden of infectious diseases continues to be vector-borne illnesses. Understanding the dynamics of vector-borne diseases in urban environments is important because more and more people are residing in cities (La Deau et al. 2015). a variety of medically significant ectoparasites (such as fleas, lice, and bed bugs). In cities, arthropods like roaches and filth flies are frequently linked to issues with public health.

Bradley & Altizer 2007). Here, we concentrate on mosquito-borne arbovirus transmission (e.g., the West Nile virus, yellow fever) and the expanding public health risk posed by tick-borne illnesses in urban and green areas outside of cities (like Lyme disease). Although the variety of these arthropods is frequently lower in urban areas, the species that do well there can reach high levels of abundance, perhaps as a result of less competition and predation (Lines et al. 1994). Humans contracting vector-borne diseases is the consequence of a complex interaction between reservoirs, arthropods, the built environment, and the natural environment, all of which are influenced by human behaviour, choices, and feedback. Arthropod-associated diseases in cities are essentially political due to their location at the intersection of land use, conservation, climate change, and human and animal health. This is demonstrated by variances in the levels of impervious surface and green space (and connectivity between green areas) that come from historical and modern decisions made in urban planning and design.

Numerous factors are impacted by the socioeconomic status of neighbourhoods in large urban centres of the possibility for disease transmission by vectors. For instance, in some years, West Nile virus infection rates in mosquitoes in low-income urban areas have been greater than populations in the same city’s higher-income neighbourhood (Rothman et al. 2021). It is important to have access to containers that can act as habitat for mosquito larvae. a significant part in the inequalities between areas of cities with various income levels (Katz et al. 2020).

The, pupae which serve as an indication of productive mosquito habitat of both Culex pipiens and Aedes albopictus were more likely to be found in containers in low-income area subsequently, showed that mosquito abundance at the block level is affected by a combination of abandonment that is the prevalence of abandoned buildings in an area and urban decay, vegetation, and precipitation. Specifically, Aedes albopictus occurs at higher densities in lower income areas, and while overall vegetation had a negative impact on mosquito abundance, this was not the case in areas with a high proportion of abandoned buildings, highlighting how behavioral, socioeconomic, biotic, and abiotic factors jointly affect mosquito abundance. The white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), a significant tick host, can paradoxically survive in higher numbers as forest pieces get smaller. This paradox may be caused by a lack of predation or an abundance of habitat along forest edges. Tick abundance and infection prevalence may increase due to white-footed mice’s high degree of competence for the Borrelia burgdorferi Lyme disease bacteria and their capacity to feed and infect huge numbers of ticks (Allan et al. 2003; Brownstein et al. 2005). Tick-borne illnesses have also been found to be impacted by how connected urban green spaces are to other green spaces, allowing for deer mobility between them. For instance, it was discovered that nymphal Ixodes scapularis were more numerous in parks with vegetated buffer zones that had better connectedness, and that this also affected the prevalence of infection with B. burgdorferi sensu stricto, a Lyme disease agent (VanAcker et al. 2019).

Urban Heat

According to Heaviside et al. (2017), cities are typically 10°C hotter than the rural surroundings. The huge number of impermeable surfaces and construction materials, which are found in cities and trap and retain heat, are substantially to blame for this temperature differential (Oke 1973). Urban heat islands are areas where temperatures are raised both during the day and at night. As a result, the environment and city dwellers receive minimal cooling respite (Heaviside et al. 2017). This results in more consecutive hot days, i.e. heat waves (Wang et al. 2019). Fortunately, the impacts of urban heat can be mitigated by urban greening practices, such as increasing tree canopies that provide shade and planting vegetation that absorbs heat. However, as canopy cover and urban greening are often linked to socioeconomics (i.e., the luxury effect), the distribution of heat, and its associated health risks, are inequitably distributed .

Increased morbidity and mortality have been associated with high temperatures and heat waves, especially in urban areas, primarily as a result of heat-related cardiovascular and respiratory conditions (Heaviside et al. 2017). Numerous environmental changes, such as altered annual and seasonal precipitation, hydrological extremes, increased frequency of extreme weather events, changes to the intensity and frequency of wildfires, as well as higher temperatures and heat waves are predicted to result from climate change The impacts of the urban heat island will only worsen in a changing environment When temperatures rise, people who can afford it need more air conditioning, which drives up electricity use. This, in turn, drives up greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating climate change. As resiliency among municipalities differs due to geophysical reasons, anticipated warming, as well as policies and resources, these discrepancies will increase both inside and between cities. In addition, the effects of urban heat will extend farther and farther as the world’s population gets more urbanised . Urban heat islands can also change how infectious agents are transmitted to people and animals via arthropod vectors. According to research by Ziter et al. (2019), impervious surfaces have a significant favourable impact on nocturnal temperatures. When combined with local humidity and tree shade, these factors may create the perfect environment for some mosquito species. Heat islands already present in cities and rising temperatures as a result of climate change will have a complex impact on urban biodiversity and alter urban ecosystems. Some animals (like amphibians) might not be able to withstand greater temperatures because of the heat or the resultant desiccation of their habitats. Other, more heat-tolerant species, such as poikilotherms like insects , non-native species , or invasive species with strong adaptive ability, may be able to extend their ranges and breeding seasons. Particularly in urban areas, novel or higher densities of some animal species may result in more contacts with people, resulting in conflict and increased exposure to zoonotic diseases. In some species, such as predator and prey species and migratory birds that time migration or reproduction with available resources, longer frost-free periods may result in phenological mismatches. Unfortunately, some species may not be able to change their ranges to avoid the effects of urban heat because of restricted mobility or decreased habitat connectivity in urban regions, which will surely result in species extinction

Water Inequities

Water is a fundamental human right and a requirement for all living things. Although historically demonstrated to rely on race and class, access to clean water in cities is a luxury (Schaider et al. 2019). When a reservoir population with a high disease prevalence comes into contact with unfamiliar host groups, a pathogen can spread from an animal to a human. Neglected tropical diseases are illnesses that have historically received little attention but cause significant illness and spread as a result of poor water quality and inadequate access to health care and sanitation services, typically in communities with extreme poverty (Haller et al. 2007, Meehan et al. 2020). the spread of infectious diseases, the consumption of metals and pesticides, and instances

Lack of access to potable water and the ability to wash hands and food might cause the risk of dehydration to be disproportionately increased. This ostensibly simple activity can be challenging to follow when the general populace is instructed to wash their hands for longer than 20 seconds at a time during a global epidemic. The environment and human health have been significantly harmed in the United States by the incorrect disposal of water waste and the lack of access to clean water (Meehan et al. 2020). Inequities in the spread of diseases on a global scale can be made worse by unequal access to clean water. Neglected tropical diseases, such as Zika, dengue, and malaria, are most prevalent in tropical regions with poor sanitation and access to clean water . Neglected tropical diseases are most prevalent in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Notably, in the areas that need it the most, funding for research on the control and prevention of these diseases is chronically inadequate . Such socioeconomic disparities serve to highlight the connection between neglected tropical diseases and neglected populations . Communities of colour are disproportionately susceptible to these diseases because of inadequate or adversarial policy measures that limit their access to natural resources, financing for research, or ecological agency..

Air Pollution

According to Fairburn et al. (2019), ambient air pollution has a substantial global impact and has been a long-standing problem for public health. Air pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and particulate matter with diameters less than 2.5 m and 10 m (PM2.5), among others, have a significant negative impact on human health, including asthma, poor pregnancy outcomes, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, and mortality. Although there is significant variation in the concentration of air pollutants throughout the urban matrix, the deposition of these pollutants and overall air quality are generally worse in urban systems.For instance, places with high traffic and higher road density tend to have concentrations of ambient PM2.5 and NO2. Many of the factors that negatively effect air quality are close to low-income neighbourhoods because of historical and modern urban design and transportation strategies, with communities of colour suffering the most . Interstate highways and other major roadways, for instance, are commonly concentrated in lower-income areas Additionally, because of unfair zoning practises , toxic waste sites are frequently situated close to marginalised populations , making people of colour responsible for urban air pollution. The air pollution risks in impacted neighbourhoods are inevitably compounded by decreased vegetation, increased impervious surfaces, and the presence of more industrial sites . Furthermore, according to recent research, even after adjusting for socioeconomic wealth, people of colour consistently face a heavier cost from air pollution across the United States Additionally, communities of colour are more likely to have poor indoor air quality resulting in a twofold burden from air pollution.

One Health and Social-Ecological Systems

Because it acknowledges the reciprocal interactions and feedbacks between human and natural systems, a social-ecological systems framework is useful for evaluating One Health issues . Equal examination of social and ecological systems clarifies relationships between entities and makes their interactions measurable, enabling more thorough assessments of programme performance. The complex, dynamic, and nonlinear nature of One Health systems, which include numerous components, each of which may be complicated, is also supported by social-ecological systems frameworks . This complexity highlights the significance of comprehending how aspects of these systems interact, as management actions targeted at one aspect of a system may have unintended and unanticipated repercussions on other components. Take care of urban rats as an illustration . Brown and black commensal rats are found in almost every metropolis on planet where adequate resources allow for a rise in animal populations. According to Himsworth et al. (2013), rats are known to harbour a variety of zoonotic germs and viruses, and there is growing knowledge of the effects of rat infestations on mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

As the world grows more urbanised, one health work will expand. Identifying these fundamental relationships between people, animals, and the environment is important since One Health is really about interactions between people and nonhuman entities early will aid in concentrating research efforts. These interactions can be used to determine which most at danger may be human and nonhuman populations, as well as the geographic breadth of data collecting. Researchers and practitioners must seek to become culturally competent in order to properly connect with people from other cultures in order to integrate Environmental Justice in One Health efforts fairly.This effort entails privilege awareness, familiarity with local history, tenacity in challenging oppressive structures, and improved empathy. Building these abilities contributes to the foundation of One Health research programmes being a justice lens.All human and nonhuman groups in the world, which is becoming more urbanised, would benefit from One Health work if research methods and policies are more equal and just.

REFERENCE

Allan BF, Keesing F, Ostfeld RS. 2003. Effect of forest fragmentation on Lyme disease risk. Conserv. Biol.,17(1):267–72

Bradley CA, Altizer S. 2007. Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22(2):95–102

Brownstein JS, Skelly DK,Holford TR, Fish D. 2005. Forest fragmentation predicts local scale heterogeneity of Lyme disease risk. Oecologia 146(3):469–75

Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, Cochran B, de Vries S, et al. 2019. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5(7):eaax0903

Clark US, Hurd YL. 2020. Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences. Nat. Hum. Behav., 4(8):774–77

Combs MA, Kache PA, VanAcker MC, Gregory N, Plimpton LD, et al. 2022. Socio-ecological drivers of multiple zoonotic hazards in highly urbanized cities. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28(5):1705-1724

Cumming GS, Cumming DHM, Redman CL. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 11(1):1-14

Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287(5452):443–49

Ducatez S, Sayol F, Sol D, Lefebvre L. 2018. Are urban vertebrates city specialists, artificial habitat exploiters, or environmental generalists? Integr. Comp. Biol. 58(5):929–38.

Fairburn J, Schüle SA, Dreger S, Hilz LK, Bolte G. 2019. Social inequalities in exposure to ambient air pollution: a systematic review in theWHO European region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16(17):3127.

Gerrish E, Watkins SL. 2018. The relationship between urban forests and income: a meta- analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 170:293–308

Haller L, Hutton G, Bartram J. 2007. Estimating the costs and health benefits of water and sanitation improvements at global level. J.Water Health 5(4):467–80

Hartig T, Mitchell R, De Vries S, Frumkin H. 2014. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35:207–28

Heaviside C,Macintyre H, Vardoulakis S. 2017. The urban heat island: implications for health in a changing environment. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 4(3):296–305 .

Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, et al. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. PNAS 100(15):8788–92.

Himsworth CG, Parsons KL, Jardine C, Patrick DM. 2013. Rats, cities, people, and pathogens: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of literature regarding the ecology of rat- associated zoonoses in urban centers. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 13(6):349–59.

Katz G, Leisnham PT, Ladeau SL. 2020. Aedes albopictus body size differs across neighborhoods with varying infrastructural abandonment. J. Med. Entomol. 57(2):615–19

Lebov J, Grieger K,Womack D, Zaccaro D,Whitehead N, et al. 2017. A framework for One Health research., One Health 3:44–50

LeongM,Dunn RR,TrautweinMD. 2018. Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect. Biol. Lett. 14(5):20180082.

Lysaght T, Capps B, Bailey M, Bickford D, Coker R, et al. 2017. Justice is the missing link in One Health: results of a mixed methods study in an urban city state. PLOS ONE 12(1):0170967

Meehan K, Jurjevich JR,ChunNMJW,Sherrill J. 2020. Geographies of insecure water access and the housingwater nexus in US cities. PNAS 117(46):28700–707

Methorst J, Rehdanz K, Mueller T, Hansjürgens B, Bonn A, Böhning-Gaese K. 2021. The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 181:106917

Mitchell BC, Chakraborty J. 2015. Landscapes of thermal inequity: disproportionate exposure to urban heat in the three largest US cities. Environ. Res. Lett. 10(11):115005.

Morello-Frosch R, Jesdale BM. 2006. Separate and unequal: residential segregation and estimated cancer risks associated with ambient air toxins in U.S. metropolitan areas. Environ. Health Perspect. 114(3):386–93.

Nesbitt L,Meitner MJ, Girling C, Sheppard SRJ, Lu Y. 2019. Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 181:51–79

Nowak DJ, Ellis A, Greenfield EJ. 2022. The disparity in tree cover and ecosystem service values among redlining classes in the United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 221:104370

Oke TR. 1973. City size and the urban heat island. Atmos. Environ. 7(8):769–79

Pataki DE. 2015. Grand challenges in urban ecology. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3:57

Rothman SE, Jones JA, LaDeau SL, Leisnham PT. 2021. HigherWest Nile virus infection in Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Culex (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes from lower income neighborhoods in urban Baltimore, MD. J. Med. Entomol. 58(3):1424–28

Seto KC, Güneralp B, Hutyra LR. 2012. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. PNAS 109(40):16083–88

Shochat E, Lerman SB, Anderies JM, Warren PS, Faeth SH, Nilon CH. 2010. Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. BioScience 60(3):199–208.

Wang C,Wang ZH,Wang C,MyintSW. 2019. Environmental cooling provided by urban trees under extreme heat and cold waves in U.S. cities. Remote Sens. Environ. 227(March):28– 43

Zinsstag J, Mackenzie JS, Jeggo M, Heymann DL, Patz JA, Daszak P. 2012. Mainstreaming One Health. EcoHealth 9(2):107–10