A qualitative study published in Agricultural and Food Economics evaluates the extent to which six specific rural development actions align with the principles of the One Health approach. The research, conducted within the context of the Italian Agritech Project, examines whether initiatives designed for the socio-economic development of marginal areas effectively integrate the three core dimensions of One Health: human health, animal health, and environmental health. The study aims to determine if these actions, which were originally developed by various research groups without an explicit One Health framework, can be interpreted through this integrated lens to assess their overall coherence and potential for systemic impact.
The One Health approach is defined as an integrated and unifying strategy that seeks to balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems in a sustainable manner. While the concept originated in comparative and veterinary medicine, its scope has expanded over time to include broader topics such as food sustainability, natural resource management, and socio-economic development. The study notes that despite its growing popularity, the definition of One Health remains somewhat unclear due to its inherently transdisciplinary nature, which combines knowledge and practices from multiple fields. This epistemological opening has led to a variety of interpretations and widespread use in diverse contexts, including agriculture, where it can promote sustainable food systems and socio-economic resilience.
The study focuses on six case studies derived from Task 7.4.2 of the Agritech Project, a component of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. These case studies were selected to explore possible actions to fill social development gaps and improve the quality of life in Italian marginal areas. The six actions include the valorisation of environmental sustainability, business farm diversification, technological solutions for ecosystem management, land consolidation, quality of life and well-being surveys, and territorial cohesion and cooperation. These actions were chosen because they represent meaningful examples for testing One Health principles, allowing for an ex-post reading of how initiatives focused on specific aspects of local development conform to the One Health vision.
The methodology employed in the study was qualitative, involving a three-step analytical process to explore the presence of the three One Health dimensions and their potential relationships in each action. The first step involved an in-depth reading of research reports written by project partners describing the single actions. This reading was carried out by four researchers at the University of Tuscia, two of whom were aware of the study’s purposes, while two were not. In the second step, the researchers filled a table reporting whether each action had a direct, indirect, or no impact on each of the three One Health dimensions. Direct impacts were marked when the effect was explicitly considered in the action, while indirect impacts were noted when the action produced a noticeable spillover effect through secondary means.
The third step of the methodology consisted of a comparison among the four tables compiled by the investigators, followed by an open discussion to reach an agreement in cases of mismatched evaluations. This final check ensured consistency in the assessment of the different actions, considering their varying typologies and heterogeneity. The outcome of this process was an “effects table” that summarized the shared opinion of the researchers regarding the presence and nature of the effects of the six actions on the One Health dimensions. This table served as the basis for placing each action into a three-circle graphical representation, which visually reported the consistency of each action with the One Health approach.
The results of the analysis revealed that only two of the six actions appeared to cover all three dimensions of the One Health approach. These actions were the valorisation of environmental sustainability and business farm diversification. The study suggests that these actions achieve stronger integration among dimensions because they are intrinsically designed to operate in multiple areas. Business diversification, for instance, simultaneously addresses economic resilience, environmental management, and social outcomes, generating direct effects on all three dimensions. Similarly, the enhancement of environmental sustainability activates governance mechanisms and stakeholder involvement, extending its effects to human and animal health.
In contrast, three of the actions responded to only two of the One Health dimensions, while one action focused exclusively on the human health dimension. The actions that covered two dimensions included technological solutions for ecosystem management, land consolidation, and territorial cohesion and cooperation. These actions were positioned in areas of the diagram that showed a stronger connection with one or two specific dimensions, reflecting a more sectorial orientation. The study notes that this spatial configuration is not accidental but can be linked to deeper structural obstacles, such as sector-specific governance arrangements and implementation tools that prioritize individual objectives over systemic outcomes.
The discussion highlights that the effectiveness of the One Health approach depends on its adoption from the initial stages of project design. Without this original approach, the effort to subsequently integrate the different dimensions is complex, reflecting the persistence of a disciplinary approach that tends to fragment the analysis. The study identifies key barriers to the implementation of One Health principles, including weak political effort, fragmented governance, limited institutional capacity, and insufficient financial resources. It also notes that many policies still consider human and animal welfare primarily, rather than health, thus limiting the possibility of an integrated, systemic analysis of health impacts.
The study acknowledges two primary methodological constraints. Firstly, the ex-post application of the One Health framework signifies that its dimensions have been superimposed upon actions not originally designed with these principles in mind. This may result in a hindsight bias, wherein complex, disparate data are retroactively fitted into a cohesive model that may not accurately reflect the original operational reality. Secondly, the utilization of a non-representative sample, comprising only six case studies, hinders the generalisability of the findings. The authors recommend that these results be regarded as contextualised prototypes rather than a universal roadmap for all rural or marginal settings.
The research underscores the need for a profound methodological evolution to overcome the current sectoral vision in rural development policies. The comprehensive analysis highlights that the One Health approach demands a fundamental transcendence of the rigid sectoral vision still widely prevalent across many current research practices. This necessity is especially evident in crucial sectors such as agriculture, where the complex interrelationships and mutual dependencies among environmental quality, community well-being, and animal health are inherently challenging to comprehend and analyse. The study concludes that effective rural development oriented towards One Health requires multi-level governance structures, stable institutional frameworks, and coordinated policy mixes that explicitly recognise cross-sectoral interdependencies.
By mapping the impact of these six actions across the three One Health dimensions, the study provides a qualitative assessment of their degree of integration. The findings suggest that initiatives formulated with a systemic rationale are more likely to yield interdisciplinary outcomes compared to those developed within narrowly delineated sectoral boundaries. The graphical representation of the results serves as an analytical tool for informing policy design choices, highlighting the strategic levers capable of promoting effective integration. The study emphasizes that while the One Health paradigm offers a robust framework for integration, its effective implementation requires moving away from traditional sectoral logic to address the complex socio-ecological challenges in marginal areas.
The implications of this study extend beyond the specific Italian case studies analysed, reflecting broader patterns documented in international research on rural and peripheral areas. Comparative evidence from OECD reports and European territorial studies shows that policy fragmentation and weak cross-sectoral coordination continue to limit the effectiveness of integrated and multi-system approaches. The study calls for a rethinking of traditional policy tools through a more integrated territory-based perspective, emphasizing the importance of communication, trust, and shared responsibility in facilitating the adoption of integrated strategies. Without such conditions, interventions risk remaining confined to sectoral priorities, limiting their ability to address complex challenges in a coherent and sustainable manner.
Subject of Research: Qualitative assessment of One Health integration in six rural development actions within the Italian Agritech Project
Article Title: One Health approach to design effective actions for the development of marginal areas
Article References: Pancino, B., Biagetti, E., Martella, A., & Franco, S. (2026). One Health approach to design effective actions for the development of marginal areas. Agricultural and Food Economics, 14(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-026-00482-x
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s40100-026-00482-x
Keywords: One Health, Rural Development, Marginal Areas, Agritech Project, Socio-economic Development, Environmental Health, Animal Health, Human Well-being, Policy Integration, Qualitative Analysis, Health, approach
News Source: Joyce Wexler. (November 11, 2026). One Health Framework Tested on Six Rural Development Actions. Scienmag.
