This research was granted ethical approval through the Prof. Dr. J.P. Garrahan Hospital Research Ethics and Review Board (N°31052023). Data collection was conducted from March to May 2023.

The methodology proposed by Casas Anguita et al. (2003) was used to develop a survey hosted online on the QuestionPro© platform. It consisted of 42 questions (Q) divided into five sections: (1) demographic information; (2) general knowledge of AW and OH; (3) perception of linkages between AW and OH; (4) implementation of actions linking AW and OH; (5) OW as an integrating framework and some “housekeeping” questions at the end of the questionnaire (including comments, remarks or suggestions). Eleven of the thirty-four closed-ended Q were formatted as a six-point Likert scale; eight were open-ended (see Tables 1 and 2 ). A blank version of the questionnaire (.pdf) is available in the Supplementary Material ( Supplementary File 1 – Survey in Spanish; Supplementary File 2 – Survey translated into English). The funnel technique was used to avoid the influence exerted by some Q’s on the answers to others presented later (Casas Anguita et al., 2003). The questionnaire was pilot-tested to ensure its content validity by 11 people from different fields: an expert in wild animal health (veterinarian), an expert in conservation biology (veterinarian), three researchers in epidemiological surveillance (two biologists and a veterinarian), two experts in AW (a veterinarian and a biologist), a zoo keeper, an anthropologist and two experts in survey development (a graduate in political economy and a journalist), all from Argentina. Based on the results of this pilot test, additional modifications were introduced in our questionnaire, such as the incorporation of the option “I don’t know” for some questions (Q14, Q15, Q17–Q22, Q25, Q26, Q29 and Q30) to avoid respondents making random choices out of obligation when in fact they do not know.

In Q14, respondents were asked to identify which of seven keywords are part of the OH definition. The definition proposed by OHHLEP-FAO (OHHLEP-FAO, 2021) was used as a basis for this Q formulation and posterior analysis. Keyword options offered were: “ecosystems”, “people”, “animals”, “intersectorality”, “transdisciplinarity”, “collaboration” and “integration”, all of them included in the definition. Likewise, for Q15, which asks to select which of 4 keywords should form part of a complete definition of AW, a combination of the definitions of Broom (Broom, 1986) and WOAH (WOAH, 2022) was used. The four keywords were: “physical state”; “mental state”; “environmental conditions”; “to cope”. From the results, performance scores were assigned to each respondent, giving the maximum score (100%) to those who had selected all the response options (seven items for Q14 and four for Q15) and the minimum score (0%) to those who had selected none (WOAH, 2022).

The survey link was distributed by email, inviting stakeholders from disciplines related to AW and OH to participate voluntarily, indicating that they could also resend to other colleagues or professionals linked to those disciplines using snowball sampling (Parker et al., 2020). In addition, the survey link was published in groups of students and professionals related to the topics covered, through social networks (Linkedin©, Twitter© and Facebook©), WhatsApp© and via email. The inclusion criteria were: 1. To work in disciplines related to OH or AW; 2. To be a student of disciplines related to OH or AW; 3. To work or have worked in their profession or to be studying in a field related to these topics in Latin America. The exclusion criteria were either answering that they did not know the concept of OH or AW (see Q11, Supplementary Files 1 and 2 ). The inclusion criteria were clearly outlined in the introduction before starting the survey. However, in order to identify those people who had begun to respond despite not meeting these inclusion criteria, some consistency and control Q were incorporated (Casas Anguita et al., 2003), such as: discipline in which you work (Q3), position you currently hold (Q5), country in which you developed your professional experience (Q10) and country about which you would answer section 4 (Q24). In addition, the survey included two filters (Casas Anguita et al., 2003). Exclusion criteria were verified in Q11, identifying those respondents who did not know the concepts of OH and AW and leading them directly to the end of the survey. Similarly, Q35 allowed filtering out those who had never heard or read about OW (see Supplementary Files 1 and 2 ). The questionnaire was accessible from March to May 2023. Before beginning the survey, potential respondents were presented with an informed consent form. To proceed with the study, they needed to accept by clicking the “start” button. Respondents were also informed that survey responses would be anonymous and strictly confidential, reporting research data only in aggregate form.

The data were initially collated, organized and cleansed by removing incomplete datasets and all data from respondents who did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, the latter group was considered to account for the number of respondents who did not know the concepts of OH and AW. Initial data manipulation as well as the construction of visualizations were performed using the tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019) and lme4 (Bates et al., 2015) packages belonging to the R Core Team (2020), together with the Infostat statistical package (Di Rienzo et al., 2016).

Categorical variables were analyzed using conventional statistical techniques including double-entry tables, Pearson χ2 and G2 maximum likelihood tests (Connover, 1999). Open answers were studied using ethnographic qualitative analysis procedures such as categorization and coding, combining both rational (a priori) and empirical (a posteriori) mechanisms (Sautu et al., 2005; Sautu, 2007; Souza Minayo, 2009). Specifically, for the “other” option in Q3 (discipline), an initial coding was conducted with the assistance of AI, employing the large language model (LLM) GPT-3 and its interface in R rgpt) (Zhao et al., 2023). This was followed by manual verification and validation of the coding. Finally, these responses were categorized into eight classes: “agri-food production”, “applied sciences and engineering”, “human sciences and economics”, “local development and projects”, “non-governmental organizations”, “other biosciences”, “public administration and government”, “wildlife management and care”. Responses to questions Q26, Q33, Q39 and Q40 were manually coded. The perception of the countries’ positioning about AW, mentioned in Q26 option “other”, was categorized according to whether it was positive or negative for the understanding of the importance of AW. It was then subcategorized according to different fields (academic, occupational, society, field practice, public policy, business) and sectors (domestic animals in general, companion animals, farm animals, wild and zoo animals), and concerning changes in habits and consumption. The initiatives mentioned in Q33, intended to identify the type of OH, AW, or both initiatives in which respondents were involved, were classified based on their scope (local, regional, national, and international) and the domain (public, private, and academic) in which they were developed ( Supplementary file 3 ). Open-ended responses to Q39, aimed at characterizing limitations or obstacles identified for the implementation of the OW framework, were categorized into six classes: “economic/commercial factors”, “socio-cultural factors”, “political factors”, “formative/educational factors”, “communicational factors” and “others”. Open-ended responses to Q40, which represented the respondents’ thoughts on more actions aimed at strengthening the link between AW and OH, were categorized into nine classes: “communication”; “economic”; “education”; “interdiscipline”; “legislation”; “public policies”; “socio-cultural factors”; “research” and “other”. All coding processes were carried out in a “double-blind” approach, since at no time were affiliation elements of the respondents (such as name, surname or institution) loaded into the database (Kornblit, 2007; Redon Pantoja and Angulo Rasco, 2017).

The demographic characteristics of the 1,054 survey respondents in this study are summarized in Table 3 . A relevant 58.3% of respondents were aged between 31 and 50 years (Q1), and the predominant gender self-perception (Q2) was female (61.6%) and male (37.1%). Educational attainment (Q6) showed a majority with undergraduate, graduate and doctoral/postdoctoral degrees. Regarding work experience (Q8), 35.9% reported over 20 years in their fields, with 32.0% having 10–20 years. The majority primarily engaged in the animal domain (54.1%) (Q9) and had professional experience in Argentina (61.7%) (Q10). The number of respondents for each country selected as their professional development location is presented in Table 4 (Q10).

Countries that respondents chose as their primary ones for answering this section (in Q24) are presented in Figure 6 .

Most respondents were female, aged between 41 and 50, and held positions as veterinarians and biologists, primarily in research and education. The 41–50 age group exhibited the highest response rate, which may coincide with the generation that was exposed to the incorporation of the OH approach in most Latin American countries (Cassidy et al., 2015). This generation could have been introduced to OH-related concepts during their undergraduate or postgraduate education.

The survey was distributed to obtain an equal number of responses from disciplines related to the three components of OH (animals, humans, and the environment). However, veterinarians were the majority of respondents, followed by biologists. This phenomenon was also observed in previous studies (E.g., Chiesa et al., 2021) and may be attributed to the historical promotion of the OH approach by professionals in animal health and public health (Zinsstag et al., 2015). Additionally, the occupational background of the authors (all veterinarians) may have influenced the higher response rate among colleagues in the same field (possible bias and other limitations of this study will be discussed in more detail in a separate section at the end of the Discussion). Despite this limitation, it is essential to highlight that an interesting proportion of respondents had more than 20 years of experience in their field of work (35.9%).

Regarding professional domains, most respondents identified themselves as researchers and educators, with significantly low participation of respondents from the government sector. This scenario was also evident in previous works (Chiesa et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023). This absence gains particular relevance when we consider the results of Q39, which identified significant constraints in implementing the OH integrative framework, with political factors ranking highest at 51.2%. These political factors encompassed key issues such as “lack of commitment,” “management articulation,” “regulations,” “conflict of interest,” and “absence of public policies.” This convergence of findings underscores a critical gap: while professionals in research and education exhibit deep involvement, governmental participation and commitment, despite their crucial role, are conspicuously lacking. The prevalence of political factors, especially the “absence of public policies,” emphasizes the urgent need for increased government engagement in promoting and implementing OH and AW policies, bridging the gap between professionals in the field and effective governmental action to address the identified challenges.

Similar to the evidence provided by Chiesa et al. (2021), the survey responses reflect an unbalanced focus on the components of the Animal–Environment–People triad, with a predominant interest in the animal–human relationship. However, the environmental component, which is crucial, appears to be overlooked. This finding suggests a need for greater attention and awareness regarding the importance of the environmental aspect within the OH and AW framework. Efforts should be made to promote a more balanced approach incorporating the environmental dimension. As shown later, in the answers to section 5 (Q38 and Q40), this can involve raising awareness, providing education and training, and encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure a comprehensive and holistic approach to OH and AW initiatives.

Education and training are vital tools for addressing challenges associated with AW and OH (Stafford and Mellor, 2009; OIE – World Organisation for Animal Health, 2013; Kagan et al., 2015; Sinclair and Phillips, 2019) and for devising strategies aimed at disease prevention, which can impact the well-being of individuals, animals, and the environment (OIE – World Organisation for Animal Health, 2013; Gibbs, 2014; Haxton et al., 2015; Rabinowitz et al., 2017; Villanueva-Cabezas et al., 2022). Our study has unveiled a substantial gap in the undergraduate education of most respondents within the OH and AW domains, as evidenced by their comparatively lower ratings. The results suggest that a significant proportion of the respondents perceive their undergraduate education in these fields as not meeting their expected educational standards, with this dissatisfaction being even greater for OH. A similar trend was observed in postgraduate education. However, it is noteworthy that a significant segment of respondents perceived a higher quality in their postgraduate education than their undergraduate education in these domains, highlighting the current significance of specialized postgraduate studies in Latin America. At least concerning veterinary education, these results contrast with those reported by Stafford and Mellor (2009). These researchers found that in 69% of the 78 WOAH Member Countries that participated in a survey, veterinary schools or other institutions covered AW training at the undergraduate level as part of other subjects, as specific courses in 51%, and as graduate degrees in 37% of the countries surveyed. While this has been further explored in the literature from human and veterinary medicine perspective (OIE – World Organisation for Animal Health, 2013; Gibbs, 2014; Haxton et al., 2015; Rabinowitz et al., 2017; Villanueva-Cabezas et al., 2022), our findings reveal that the inclusion of AW and OH approaches in university curricula emerges as a critical strategy to enhance understanding of health and well-being and their cross-disciplinary application across all fields (see discussion in Section 4.5).

Our results also provide insights into the respondents’ perceptions of the concepts of OH and AW. Regarding the first, the majority of respondents recognized each component of the triad that comprises the original OH definition (“animals,” “humans,” and “ecosystems”) (WHO, 2021). “Integration” was also acknowledged by a significant proportion of respondents, echoing the literature regarding interdisciplinary approaches within the framework of OH (Pettan-Brewer et al., 2021; Prata et al., 2022). However, there was less recognition of keywords such as “transdisciplinarity”, “collaboration”, and “intersectorality” (35.8%). These concepts could be nuanced and may not be as widely understood as fundamental elements of OH. While our findings revealed a reduced level of recognition for these keywords, we acknowledge that further investigations are warranted to ascertain whether a lack of understanding or other factors influenced these responses. At the same time, among the keywords mentioned as complementary to the seven proposed, “communication” was the second most cited. This was also reflected in the answers to Q38 and Q40, where communication reappears as one of the essential strategies for strengthening the link between AW and OH. This deserves to be highlighted, given that communication has been reported as one of the main challenges of transdiscipline, essential to enable collaboration and intersectoriality (Fraude et al., 2021; Lawrence et al., 2022). Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) have recognized that addressing health risks at the interfaces between humans, animals, and ecosystems requires strong partnerships among stakeholders who may have different perspectives on certain issues and varying levels of resources. In this vein, in 2010 they defined OH as “An approach to address a health threat at the human–animal–environment interface based on collaboration, communication, and coordination across all relevant sectors and disciplines, with the ultimate goal of achieving optimal health outcomes for both people and animals (WHO et al., 2010; FAO et al., 2019). Within the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the tripartite group redefined OH from their advisory panel, the “One Health” High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), whose members represent a broad range of disciplines in science and policy-related sectors relevant to OH from around the world. The new definition developed by the OHHLEP states: “One Health” is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development” (WHO, 2021). The new definitions of OH (OHHLEP-FAO, 2021) emphasize the importance of incorporating these additional dimensions into the approach.

Within the context of the AW concept, fewer than 30% of the respondents recognized all four keywords as integral components of the comprehensive AW definition. Respondents favored “environmental conditions” as the most salient keyword, garnering the highest recognition, surpassing both “physical state” and “mental state,” which followed in order of significance. This preference is noteworthy given that AW, by definition, encompasses a state (Broom, 1991; WOAH, 2022). Surprisingly, “mental state” ranked third in recognition, despite being a central component in several AW definitions (Duncan, 1996; Duncan, 2002; WOAH, 2022) and theoretical models (Mellor et al., 2020). Also, based on the definition of AW proposed by Broom (1986), it is unexpected that “to cope” was the least considered among the keywords. While respondents could recognize the keywords of the definition to varying degrees, the survey unveiled diverse responses. This could indicate that the definition of AW is not yet comprehensively understood, and it is primarily associated with the environment, overlooking the importance of an organism’s capabilities to cope with diverse circumstances, which is closely linked to its physical and mental state (Broom, 1986). However, when analyzing these data in context, it turns out that 24.7% of the respondents stated that their work was exclusively associated with OH, which could explain the lower performance in selecting keywords for the definition of AW. Further research is needed to determine the factors that may have influenced this low performance.

The data analysis in “other” reveals intriguing insights into the concepts OH and AW, emphasizing the complexity and diversity of perspectives associated with these domains. Notably, the set of complementary keywords introduces several dimensions, incorporating additional key aspects that enrich and expand our understanding of these domains. Also, the number of respondents who suggested complementary keywords for the definition of AW doubled the number for OH. While this requires further analysis, it may indicate that the definition of AW could be expanded in the future, as has recently been the case for OH (OHHLEP-FAO, 2021). These findings underscore the dynamic nature of OH and AW concepts (Ohl and van der Staay, 2012; Mackenzie and Jeggo, 2019; Prata et al., 2022), hinting at a trend toward consolidating a unified definition as this expansion broadens the scope of each concept. The inclusion of diverse perspectives further emphasizes the necessity of adopting comprehensive and inclusive approaches to address the complex challenges and issues related to human, animal, and environmental well-being.

The evaluation and analysis of environmental factors and the understanding of organism ecology are crucial for modeling and predicting threats and risks to human and animal health, contributing significantly to OH surveillance (Leifels et al., 2022). Furthermore, there is new evidence of an evolution in thinking and an awareness that AW directly and indirectly impacts many dimensions of human and environmental health and social well-being beyond the animal component itself (Garcia Pinillos, 2017). When examining responses primarily from veterinarians (592 cases) and biologists (299 cases), it becomes evident that over 60% perceive their work as effectively intertwined with OH and AW. Remarkably, more than 95% acknowledge a substantial interconnection between AW and OH, resulting in mutual benefits for these two domains. However, for disciplines unrelated to wildlife management, the conceptualization of the impact of AW within the animal–human–environment triad tends to favor the animal component. This aligns with Chiesa et al. (2021), who noted a tendency to primarily address the human–animal component as “classic zoonoses,” emphasizing their prevention, control, and surveillance. In our study, when respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which AW improvements contribute to addressing the listed OH challenges, emerging diseases received the highest scores. However, climate change, pollution, toxic agents, and socio-environmental aspects received lower scores, potentially biased due to the underrepresentation of certain disciplines, especially social ones, in our study. The lowest scores were assigned to war and natural disasters, poverty and malnutrition, suggesting that there is still no comprehensive understanding of how to link the mitigation of these challenges with improvements in AW.

Both definitions of OH and AW underscore the fundamental role of the environmental component (Broom, 1986; OHHLEP-FAO, 2021; WHO, 2021; WOAH, 2022). As exemplified by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes evident that the impact of an infection on health can be significantly influenced by various environmental factors (Kreutz et al., 2023). This underscores the imperative to interpret and evaluate the intricate interplay between an infectious agent and concurrent determinants associated with the physical and social environment. In alignment with the insights provided by Humboldt-Dachroeden and Mantovani (2021), humans and animals are inherently interconnected across diverse environments, emphasizing the need to incorporate environmental perspectives. This can be achieved through expert involvement, applying techniques to assess environmental factors, and sharing relevant data. Consequently, the environmental pillar emerges as an integrative and unifying thread that benefits and interconnects both OH and AW concepts, underscoring the need to prioritize efforts on this component for effectively addressing emerging challenges.

According to our study, there is a broad consensus among the surveyed Latin American countries that the importance of AW has improved overall in the past ten years. However, a high proportion of respondents (over 60%) believe these changes are not currently reflected in habits, consumption patterns, or public policies. The perception of how their countries communicate and apply OH concepts to public policies is very poor, highlighting the need for further improvement in this field. Consistently, respondents indicate that research projects or NGOs mainly drive these policies, while government agencies are rarely identified as promoters of AW/OH policies. This result suggests a perceived absence of government involvement in incorporating AW and OH topics into daily life, indicating a disconnection between theory and practice in some cases.

Linking this apparent dissociation with the appropriation of new concepts we observed when respondents proposed new terms for the definitions of OH and AW (see Section 3.2 referring to Q14 and Q15), we could infer that respondents harbor enthusiasm and positivity toward integrating AW and OH. Future investigations could explore whether this positive attitude could be harnessed to support public policies or official initiatives driven by government agencies.

Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in public perception of health, zoonoses, and the trade of animals (Shi et al., 2020). However, from our results, we can conclude that while the concept of OH has become more evident for the majority of respondents, the relationship between OH and AW has not been affected in the same way. Knowledge and people’s perceptions of diseases significantly impact their willingness to adopt behaviors that help prevent and reduce disease transmission (Lee et al., 2020). The OH approach is not just focused on zoonotic disease. However, it can address the full spectrum from prevention, health improvement, and health promotion to the detection, preparedness, response, and recovery from health crises (OHHLEP-FAO, 2021). The dissemination of the OH approach can be seen as a first step that will contribute to improving the approaches to these complex issues and preventing future pandemics. However, the connection with AW is essential, especially when addressing the issues of emerging diseases from their origins (Akhtar, 2013; Molento, 2014; Magouras et al., 2020). Efforts to incorporate the links between both approaches must be sustained and widespread.

Our findings reveal a disparity in awareness and educational experiences related to the OW concept. The majority of respondents demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the OW framework. Among those familiar with the concept, the evaluation of undergraduate and postgraduate education in OW revealed varying perceptions based on when they had undertaken these studies. For instance, most respondents rated their undergraduate education in OW as inadequate, indicating a lack of integrating OW principles into undergraduate curricula, even recently. While OH and AW concepts have been established for over two decades (Broom, 2011; Kahn et al., 2012), the OW approach is relatively new (Pinillos et al., 2016), and our results suggest that it tends to be more frequently addressed in postgraduate studies. A higher proportion of respondents expressed satisfaction with their postgraduate education in OW, suggesting a more positive experience and potential for deeper engagement in the field. This result implies that such approaches are often incorporated into undergraduate university programs after gaining acceptance among professionals, following their establishment through postgraduate courses. The main educational gaps identified for OW implementation included a need for more comprehensive training for teachers and students in these areas, reflecting that AW and OH are only recently being formally incorporated into Latin American education. Addressing the awareness gap and improving educational opportunities can promote the integration of OW principles. This study also emphasized incorporating AW and OH concepts within the scientific community, which could improve the application of these approaches in practice. To this end, introducing the OW concept into the research community has the advantage of helping identify mutually beneficial outcomes between animal, human, and environmental health through the introduction of the key search term OW (Pinillos et al., 2016).

As Colonius and Earley (2013) asserted, the integration of OW approaches could foster collaboration among related disciplines, promote action, and stimulate civic engagement, which was also identified as a priority. These approaches need to transcend disciplinary and academic frameworks and become recognized by society at large. Considering that political factors were also identified as significant barriers to OW implementation, improving OW education should not only focus on closely related disciplines but also on profiles associated with public regulations, policymakers, and government agencies. It should involve the entire community, facilitating collaboration, learning, and exchange based on inclusivity, equity, and access (OHHLEP-FAO, 2021). As emphasized in the new OH definition, these approaches will make it easier for people to understand better collateral benefits, risks, trade-offs, and opportunities to promote equitable and holistic solutions. Interprofessional education is recognized, indeed, as an essential element of successful transdisciplinary collaborative practice, noting that just working with others in particular scenarios or temporary teams is not enough to build an effective collaborative workforce (Squance et al., 2021) with long-term perspectives, as learned during the recent pandemic COVID-19.

Lastly, implementing policies and creating new or improved regulatory frameworks were also recognized as priorities to strengthen the connection between AW and OH. In this regard, the implementation of the OW framework would empower the AW and OH fields to address the connections between science and policies more effectively in various areas of human society, including environmental sciences and sustainability (García Pinillos et al., 2016).

It is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of this study when assessing and contextualizing our findings. One of the primary limitations encountered was the uneven geographical representation within our sample. We observed a significant disparity in participation from various Latin American countries, with some being highly represented while others had minimal or no representation at all. This imbalance hindered the execution of specific country-level comparative analyses and limited our ability to extrapolate findings to a regional level. Furthermore, a noticeable discrepancy was observed in the representation of academic disciplines and professions among our respondents. While the fields of biological sciences and veterinary sciences were well represented, others, such as medical and environmental sciences and human and economic sciences, were underrepresented. The limited representation of respondents from disciplines related to the environmental component of the OH triad could be a limitation of this study. However, it also reflects the historical development of OH in Latin America. This unequal composition may have introduced a bias toward a perspective centered on biology and veterinary science, potentially hindering a comprehensive understanding of the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health. Conducting a follow-up survey with targeted sampling to obtain more respondents from ecosystem-related fields and a deeper appreciation of this component would be of interest. These limitations emphasize the need for future interdisciplinary research efforts to address these disparities and facilitate a more holistic and equitable understanding of the interplay between AW and the OH approach in the Latin American region.

Exploring the links between OH and AW has sparked a debate regarding the inclusion of one within the other. On the one hand, the OH approach, mainly through its new definition (OHHLEP-FAO, 2021), incorporates AW as a fundamental part of the framework. Among the key underlying principles that have been raised, there is a mention of human stewardship and responsibility to change behavior and adopt sustainable solutions that recognize the importance of AW and the integrity of the entire ecosystem, thus ensuring the well-being of current and future generations. In this sense, it could be understood that OH encompasses AW. However, AW goes a step further by proposing that health is only one of the five domains that compose it and that, either directly or indirectly, attending to each of these domains supports improvements not only to animal welfare but also to human well-being and environmental sustainability. Recognizing this close relationship between AW and global health urges us to consider welfare as an essential element in all public health initiatives and OH approaches. Moreover, it highlights the need to actively promote the care and protection of animals as a fundamental basis for ensuring a healthy and sustainable society.

The OW framework (García Pinillos et al., 2016) is an integrative and novel approach that allows highlighting and enhancing the links between AW and OH. Tarazona et al. (2020) discuss how, in a global context where human actions are damaging much of the world’s life, it is essential to remember that the basic concepts of biology, welfare and health are the same for humans and all other living beings. Increased awareness of these issues opens the door to new paradigms. The concepts of OH and OW are now widely accepted and used (Jordan and Lem, 2014). In addition, they have recently been joined by “one biology”. This new approach implies that the biological principles are the same for humans and other animals, although there are species-specific and ontogenetic differences. Understanding the concepts of OH, OW and “one biology” and their application to everyday decisions about production systems, public policies, markets and consumers could help mitigate negative anthropogenic impacts on health, welfare, biodiversity and environmental sustainability (Tarazona et al., 2020).