Can a walk in the park, a bird feeder on the balcony, or a battle with mice in the basement change the health of entire communities — humans and animals alike — and even shape future relationships between us? This article shows that they can. Health is not only an outcome of contact with wildlife; it can also be its driving force. The authors propose a One Health framework in which what happens to us, to animals, and to the environment is woven into feedback loops: the health benefits and risks for humans influence our decisions (e.g., whether or not to feed animals, whether to use poison or clean up waste), those decisions affect the condition of animals, and that, in turn, increases or decreases the likelihood of future encounters. The result? A system that can fuel “good” cycles of coexistence or “bad” spirals of conflict.

In practice, this looks very ordinary. When we experience calm and joy from being in contact with nature, we are more likely to create animal-friendly gardens, hang bird feeders, and go wildlife watching. Such actions can strengthen local populations and facilitate safe, positive encounters in the future — provided, of course, that they are done sensibly (feeder hygiene, native plants, avoiding crowding at feeding points). On the other hand, fear of disease or damage encourages quick, “chemical” solutions. A classic example is rodenticides: they reduce rodent numbers, but they also poison predators and may indirectly increase susceptibility to skin diseases, which changes animal behavior and more often brings them close to people. This is already a full loop: our fear → poisons → weaker predators → more troublesome encounters → even more fear.

An excellent case study is the Los Angeles mountain lion known as P22. For years, he avoided development and people, but during periods of poorer health (including mange and an injury after a collision), he entered the city more often, which led to incidents involving dogs and ultimately to the animal’s euthanasia. This story shows, as if through a lens, that the condition of animals literally shifts the trajectory of human–animal relationships — and that better management of the health of wild populations (as well as reducing toxins) can also serve as prevention for us. At the same time, wise communication and investments in habitat connectivity (e.g., wildlife crossings) can build public support for coexistence.

The authors also emphasize the environmental framework: urbanization, climate change, and land-use change increase the overlap between human and animal spaces, shift the ranges of disease vectors, and intensify competition for water or food. All of this modulates the pace and nature of our future encounters — sometimes toward conflict (e.g., crop damage during drought), sometimes toward coexistence (well-designed greenery, fewer “attractants,” better waste management). That is why effective actions should be primarily proactive: limiting the causes of problems (messy garbage areas, the availability of anthropogenic food), and only secondarily responding to their effects. It is also crucial to communicate risk without fearmongering — with an emphasis on specifics: what to do today so that there will be fewer conflicts tomorrow.

The core message fits perfectly with One Health: to look at the health of humans, animals, and the environment together, rather than “winning” it at the expense of any one element. From this perspective, order around waste, feeder hygiene, alternatives to rodenticides, health monitoring of wild populations, wildlife crossings, or gardens with native plants are not details for enthusiasts, but investments in the well-being of the entire community — human and non-human. This approach makes it possible to switch local systems from loops of fear and harm to loops of benefits and tolerance.

Source: Murray, M. H., Gelmi-Candusso, T., Short Gianotti, A. G., Morzillo, A. T., Young, J. K., Larson, K. L., Fidino, M., Magle, S., Riley, S. P. D., Sikich, J. A., Schell, C. J., & Wilkinson, C. E. (2025). Health as an outcome and driver of human–wildlife interactions. BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf088