Categorisation of the One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping

Simple Summary

Honey bees are essential for agriculture and biodiversity. However, their welfare is often overlooked. This study explores how Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs) can be integrated into the One Welfare framework, which considers animal, human, and environmental welfare as equally important. We re-evaluated 243 previously identified HBWPs and analysed their impact not only on honey bee welfare, but also on human wellbeing and environmental sustainability. We also considered how each practice affects productivity, time demands for beekeepers, and the attitude of beekeepers toward animal welfare. As a result, we defined a new set of “One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping”. These practices support a balanced and inclusive approach to beekeeping, where the needs of bees, people, and the environment are all taken into account. While some practices require time and effort, they can lead to long-term benefits such as healthier colonies, improved working conditions, and environmental protection. This approach offers a flexible and sustainable model for beekeeping that can be adapted to different systems worldwide.

Abstract

Honey bees are vital to ecosystem conservation, agricultural production, and biodiversity, yet their welfare has often been overlooked. This study introduces the integration of Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs) into the One Welfare framework, addressing the interconnectedness of honey bee welfare, environmental welfare, and human wellbeing. We analysed and re-evaluated the 243 HBWPs already identified and categorised within the context of the Five Domains model in 2024 by Giovanni Formato et al., and we explored their broader impacts. By incorporating the One Welfare approach, we assessed each practice’s effect on bee welfare both as individuals and as a superorganism, human wellbeing, and environmental welfare, as well as their economic and time-related implications for beekeepers. The aim of this study was to obtain a list of One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping, considering all stakeholders as equally important. The analysis highlights the multidimensional nature of beekeeping, with 280 practices positively affecting honey bee welfare, while also considering their potential impact on human wellbeing, environmental health, and production. Challenges such as balancing beekeeper time constraints and welfare goals are discussed, with recommendations for practical compromises. This approach can offer a holistic and sustainable model for apiculture, ensuring that welfare is maintained across all stakeholders, and provides a flexible framework applicable to various beekeeping systems worldwide.

1. Introduction

Honey bees are well-known for their essential role in ecosystem conservation, pollinating both cultivated and wild plant species. They contribute substantial economic value to agriculture through honey production and related by products while also supporting biodiversity and global food security [1,2,3,4].

Despite advancements in welfare policies for other species, honey bees have historically been overlooked, with only a few references to managed honey bee welfare [5,6]. Recently, Formato and colleagues [7] identified 243 Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs), categorising them by their impact on the Five Domains model identified in 2015 by Mellor and Beausoleil [8], with reference to the practices already listed in the BPRACTICES project based on the One Health approach [9,10,11]. Their work introduced 28 new honey bee welfare specific practices, with particular attention paid to honey bee physiology, behaviour, sufferings, the quality of their foraging area, and the mental state domain, to ensure a comprehensive welfare approach for honey bees [7].

The One Welfare framework [12] highlights the interconnectedness of humans, animals, and the environment, recognising their equal importance. When applied to honey bees, this concept allows us to acknowledge the impact of honey bee welfare on ecological and human wellbeing, and vice versa. It considers various aspects, including socio-economic value, environmental protection, pollinator and biodiversity conservation, human and animal rights, soil preservation, food security, and food safety [13,14,15]. A core aspect of this approach is its broad interdisciplinary nature, encompassing fields such as veterinary medicine, law, ethics, economics, sociology, human health, and biology [16], which makes the approach more comprehensive.

Given its broad scope, the One Welfare framework in beekeeping does not place one stakeholder above others, but promotes balanced actions, offering a reasonable compromise to equally benefit humans, bees, and the environment. It also emphasises the importance of mental experiences and individual preferences, in addition to physical health [8,17,18,19]. This way, it is possible to promote a resilient, welfare-centred apiculture model where everyone counts. Gaining a complete understanding of the impacts of welfare practices allows for more informed decision making, providing every type of beekeeping with the opportunity to become welfare-friendly over time. Furthermore, this framework integrates the behavioural, physiological, and mental aspects of honey bee care with the economic, physical, and mental wellbeing of beekeepers. It also considers overall environmental enrichment, ensuring a comprehensive welfare approach. To fully incorporate One Welfare into applied beekeeping, this work is the first to explore the integration of Honey Bee Welfare Practices with human wellbeing and environmental welfare. The aim of this study, in fact, is to obtain a list of One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping, considering all stakeholders as equally important. For that reason, we categorise all practices, considering their impact on productivity and beekeeper time consumption. We also determine whether these practices benefit bees as individuals or as superorganism in the long term. Indeed, bee colonies are considered true “superorganisms”, where individual bees represent “cells”. Therefore, every activity performed by bees should not be seen as the action of a single individual, but rather as a function aimed at the overall operation of the entire superorganism [20]. Given this physiological characteristic of honey bees, we deem it appropriate to consider the potential benefits of each practice either on the individual bee (e.g., the queen) or on the entire colony.

This dual perspective allows us to propose different possible management options to beekeepers, depending on their orientation in beekeeping management (e.g., professional, hobbyist, conventional, organic, size of the beekeeping operation, etc.), thus enabling us to achieve our purpose.

2. Materials and Methods

After providing, for the first time, a definition of the One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping, we further reviewed the 243 Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs) already identified and defined by Formato and colleagues [7], integrating the One Health approach with the One Welfare Framework. This allowed us to focus on welfare and its compromises, not only for honey bees, but also for humans and the environment. We improved the English for all practices, merged some of them, and divided others for easier reading and comprehension. Additionally, some practices were removed to avoid repetition, and 61 new ones were added, reaching a total of 295 (Appendix A). For instance, some of these new practices address phytosanitary product intoxication or poisoning, a topic entirely overlooked in prior research, yet one that commonly affects beekeepers worldwide. After that, we classified them according to their positive impact on the following three “welfare categories”: Human Wellbeing (HW), Environmental Welfare (EW) and Honey Bee Welfare (HBW).

To better understand how to assign the welfare categories to each HBWP, it was important first to know the definitions of human wellbeing and environmental welfare.

There are multiple perspectives from which welfare and its subjects of interest can be framed. For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) does not provide a single definition of “human welfare or wellbeing”, but often refers to the overall wellbeing and quality of life of individuals, encompassing physical, mental, and social dimensions. Human wellbeing is, in fact, explained by the WHO as “a resource for daily life determined by social, economic and environmental conditions. Wellbeing encompasses quality of life and the ability of people and societies to contribute to the world with a sense of meaning and purpose” [21].

Conversely, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) defines animal welfare as “the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies” [22].

A good state of welfare, whether for animals or humans, implies that an individual is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express natural behaviours, and free from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress.

In essence, animal welfare refers to the quality of life of an animal, taking into account its health, wellbeing, and ability to thrive within its environment. The WOAH provides international guidance and standards aimed at promoting animal welfare worldwide.

Instead, the One Welfare Framework explains environmental welfare as, for people, “leading a lifestyle that values the relationship between ourselves, our community, and the environment. Individual wellbeing is affected by the environments we live in and we as individuals also have a significant impact on these environments. Cultivating environmental welfare requires the ability of humans to recognise the responsibility to protect the earth and promote lifestyle practices that serve to sustain the natural environment and its resources” [23].

Therefore, these definitions encompass many aspects and levels of human life, including people’s responsibility to act in a certain way to take good care not only of themselves, but also of the planet and its resources.

Moreover, we decided to analyse all the HBWPs considering their impact on production (P) and time consumption for beekeepers (T), and we deepened the practices’ possibility to have more benefits for the bee as an individual (I) or the superorganism in the long term (S). Then, we assigned each HBWP to positivity (↑), negativity (↓), equality (=), or not applicable (NA) effect indicators, according to the impact that they had on those four variables (P, T, I, and S). In some cases, it was necessary to use an asterisk symbol (*), instead of the indicators already listed, to indicate the need for further studies.

Our judgements on these variables were based on the already validated Good Beekeeping Practices (GBPs) [11] and Biosecurity Measures in Beekeeping (BMBs) [10], also considering the Five Domains Model and previous work on HBWPs [7]. Furthermore, our personal experience in beekeeping was taken into account when assessing these practices. To ensure objective validation, our hope is to later engage a group of experts. We would then compare our assessments and exchange views to formally endorse these One Welfare practices.

We evaluated the time variables of mandatory practices and legal obligations detailed in Appendix A (such as compliance with veterinary regulations and competent authority directives for WOAH-listed diseases) as “not applicable”. This is because beekeepers have no discretion regarding these requirements, therefore, the time needed for their application cannot be evaluated, as compliance is obligatory. Conversely, in instances where a practice might be mandatory only in certain countries (e.g., the registration of the apiary and/or beekeeper in the national registry), we provided an assessment for the variables examined.

3. Results

The One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping can be defined as “all operational and integrative activities intended to promote the best living conditions for honey bees, humans, and the environment, by achieving an optimal welfare balance between the three components”.

After our revision, we effectively obtained a total of 295 One Welfare Practices (Appendix A) based on their benefits and impacts on Human Wellbeing (HW), Environmental Welfare (EW), and Honey Bee Welfare (HBW). We had to consider 61 new practices [Honey Bee Welfare Practices (

Table 1. New Honey Bee Welfare Practices [7], modified], within the One Welfare approach.

Honey Bee Welfare Practice	Welfare Category
Avoid areas where toxic (e.g., with pyrrolizidine alkaloids) plants (e.g., Echium spp., Eupatorium spp. and Senecio spp.) can be found in a significant quantity	HW
Limit the lifting of weights (e.g., when harvesting supers or when moving hives) and use back support devices if needed	HW
Avoid areas where allergenic plants (e.g., Ambrosia trifida and Artemisia vulgaris) can be found in a significant quantity	HW
In the case of abnormal mortality, contact veterinary services and the competent authorities	HBW, EW
Be mindful of any unusual odour when opening the hive—a foul smell of carpentry glue is commonly associated with suspected cases of the clinical form of AFB	HBW
In the case of unplanned phytosanitary treatments (with products toxic to bees), the farmer should immediately notify the beekeeper to assess whether to move the hives as soon as possible or close them before the morning flight begins by covering them with wet cloths, supplying them with water, and ensuring air circulation	HBW, EW
In the case of poisoning caused by phytosanitary treatments (with products toxic to bees), the beekeeper should move the hives as soon as possible, if feasible, or close them before the morning flight begins by covering them with wet cloths, supplying them with water, and ensuring air circulation	HBW
In the case of unplanned phytosanitary treatments or poisoning, replace the queen (if old) with a younger, more vigorous one	HBW
In the case of slow and progressive mortality with contaminated pollen, remove the combs and replace them with others containing pollen from healthy colonies, or provide protein nutrition in addition to sugar	HBW
Carry out inspections for honey bee diseases before transferring colonies to a new location	HBW
Follow national rules for migratory beekeeping	HBW, HW, EW
Have enough space for storage rooms/working tools	HBW, HW
Inspect colonies during suitable weather conditions to reduce stress	HBW, HW
Provide hives with a proper stand	HBW
Guarantee proper space between hives	HBW
Avoid placing apiaries in areas exposed to excessive humidity	HBW
Avoid obstacles for bees (e.g., high grass/snow in front of the hive entrance)	HBW
Ensure the presence of trees (or other barriers) to create protection against weather stressors (e.g., heat, wind, etc.)	HBW
Prevent the theft of hives (e.g., assess presence/build a fence around the apiary)	HW
Seasonally relocate the apiary, where possible (e.g., taking into account the season, wintering near warmer areas)	HBW
Keep a safe distance from houses/villages (for human safety)	HW, HBW
Provide a proper orientation of the hive entrances so that the sun can reach them from the early morning hours to sunset	HBW
Choose the best colonies as larvae donors	HBW, HW
Do not keep diseased colonies: intervene properly if you suspect or detect a disease to avoid the spread of pathogens (e.g., sampling for laboratory analysis; treatment; destruction, etc.)	HBW, HW
Evaluate colony food stores, considering the availability of honey and pollen and the floral source of honey	HBW
Evaluate the space needed by the colony, according to its strength	HBW
Evaluate the mating success of the queen	HBW, HW
Verify that the recently mated queen has started oviposition	HBW, HW
Expand the colony to give it space	HBW
Assess colony strength during hive inspection	HBW
During hive inspections, verify the presence of the queen	HBW
During hive inspections, verify oviposition activity of the queen	HBW
During hive inspections, assess signs of diseases	HBW
Practice the proper overwintering of hives	HBW
Properly process beeswax for the production of new wax foundations	HBW
Perform wax moth control	HBW
Adopt proper comb storage	HBW
Replace old beehive frames (when degraded, spent, or mouldy to ensure hygiene standards and to maintain space for oviposition)	HBW
Replace queens with poor hygienic behaviour	HBW
Identify the best moment for Varroa treatments according to the national climatic areas	HBW, EW
Properly use formic acid for Varroa treatment	HBW, EW
Properly use oxalic acid (including sublimated) for Varroa treatment	HBW, EW
Properly use thymol (e.g., applying only when environmental temperature is high enough)	HBW, EW
Properly use other registered medical products with a low environmental impact	HBW, EW
Do not move potentially AFB-infected materials (e.g., frames/bees/feeds) to healthy colonies	HBW
Ensure the prompt notification of American Foulbrood (AFB) cases to adjacent beekeepers	HBW, HW
Establish a group of advisors in the local beekeeping community to help beekeepers in managing the spread of diseases	HBW
Inform your neighbours about EFB at your apiary	HBW, HW
Do not move potentially EFB-infected materials (e.g., frames/bees/feeds) to healthy colonies	HBW
Use only feed safe for bees (e.g., specifically registered, without bee pathogens, etc.)	HBW
Clean feeders after their use	HBW
If robbing occurs, temporarily close the hive or reduce the entrances, clean honey residues from hives surfaces or surrounding areas, and use the smoker	HBW
Do not heat sugar solutions over tap-warm temperature	HBW
Use proper feeders	HBW, HW
Keep records of harvesting data	HW
Use a recording method (physical or digital registers/apps) that fits to your needs and the size of your beekeeping operation	HW, HBW
During hive inspections, record the characteristics of honey bee queens (e.g., brood pattern, amount of eggs laid, cohesiveness of the colony, etc.)	HBW, HW
During hive inspections, record any zootechnical performance of the colony (productivity, hygienic behaviour, docility, etc.)	HBW, HW
Mark/identify hives that need subsequent attention	HBW, HW
Keep records of the veterinary medicinal products authorised in your country	HBW, HW
Periodically update the list of the authorised veterinary medicinal products	HBW, HW

)] involving human, environmental, and honey bee welfare, omitted in the previous work by Formato et al. [7], and we added them to the most suitable existing headings.

While 280 practices positively impact Honey Bee Welfare (13 of which are not in bold, thus considered to have a lower positive impact than others), this may not always be the predominant factor over Environmental or Human Wellbeing effects. In fact, 106 practices enhance Human Wellbeing (HW) (including 50 not in bold), and 34 support Environmental Welfare (EW) (17 of which are not in bold).

Regarding productivity, 213 practices positively affect this (↑), while 5 have a negative impact (↓), 56 are found to have no impact (=), 19 practices are rated as “not applicable” (NA), and in only 2 cases is the assigned impact either positive or negative (↑/↓).

On the other hand, 9 practices are time-saving (↑), 236 have a negative impact because they are time-consuming (↓), 44 have no impact on time (=), for 4 practices we decide it is appropriate to write “not applicable” (NA), and in 2 cases we assign both a negative and a non-applicability rating (↓/NA).

Concerning the benefit of the practices for honey bees as individuals (I), 196 have a positive impact (↑), 17 have a negative one (↓), 28 are “not applicable” (NA), 28 have no impact (=), 25 are rated as both positive and negative (↑/↓), and in 1 case, we use the asterisk symbol (*) due to the need for further studies.

In the case of long-term benefits for the superorganism (S), 255 practices positively affect it (↑), none have a negative impact (↓), 8 practices are considered as “not applicable” (NA), 23 have no impact (=), 8 practices are both positive and negative (↑/↓), and in 1 case, the asterisk symbol “*” is assigned due to the need for further studies (the same case as mentioned before).

4. Discussion

Honey Bee Welfare Practices have been increasingly investigated to assess their overall impact on Honey Bee, Human, and Environmental Welfare, with the aim to identify new One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping.

This assessment included considerations of the daily practices’ effects on beekeepers (e.g., time demand), the potential impacts on productivity, and the added value of bee-friendly management. Moreover, benefits were considered both for honey bees (as individuals and/or as a superorganism in the long term) and for beekeepers, recognising that some practices merely or primarily benefit human welfare [e.g., practice n°73: Limit the lifting of weights (e.g., when harvesting supers or when moving hives) and use back support devices if needed].

Our final goal was to provide a balanced perspective in a holistic approach that accounts for the wellbeing of bees, humans, and the environment, offering an objective evaluation of each practice to facilitate reasonable compromises and promote equitable welfare across all ecosystem components.

The results highlight that most of the practices (236) were reported as being time-consuming for beekeepers. Being a beekeeper requires significant commitment, not only to maintain and improve productivity, but also to implement various strategies aimed at enhancing animal care. A clear distinction emerged between professional beekeepers and hobbyists. In fact, some practices, such as monitoring honey bee behaviours (practice n°97), could be unfeasible for professionals due to the large number of colonies in the apiary. In contrast, hobbyists may be more attentive to such practices because of greater dedication, time availability, and often having fewer hives to manage. However, it is important to note that many practices perceived as time-consuming may only be so in the short term, while over time, they could contribute to improving final outcomes in terms of productivity and health. For instance, adhering to hygiene rules and protocols both periodically and when handling dead colonies (practices n°7 and 8) or adopting the queen caging technique in association with acaricide treatments can reduce disease outbreaks and decrease productivity from a long-term perspective. Similarly, prioritising gentle beekeeping methods during hive inspections (practice n°53) reduces the risk of colony stress, increasing the long-term resilience of the bees. These findings underline the need for further studies to better understand the differences between practices that are time-consuming in the short term and those that provide long-term benefits to both bees and beekeepers.

Some practices, while beneficial for beekeepers, may conflict with honey bee welfare and vice versa, requiring compromises. For example, not marking the queen may benefit her welfare by sparing unnecessary suffering, but can be time-consuming for beekeepers to find her during hive inspections if not marked, to the point of being considered unfeasible for some professional beekeepers. Additionally, this can lead to a loss of beekeeper welfare, resulting in longer workdays and an increased risk of bee mismanagement. For example, bees might be exposed to cold or rain in adverse weather, or the colony could become orphaned if the queen, after being marked and released, is not recognised by workers due to a different odour, potentially leading to her death. Similarly, not marking the queen can lead to failure or wasting time in locating her on the frames, especially for inexperienced beekeepers. Given these considerations, a more feasible compromise might be only marking queens of high genetic value. Of course, marking queens causes stress to the individual bee, but from a long-term perspective, it may be time-saving for beekeepers and provide benefits to the whole colony. The challenge lies in deciding whether to mark the queen or not, as there are advantages and disadvantages with both options.

When considering queen substitution (practice n°76), replacing the queen offers potential benefits for production and can positively influence the superorganism’s welfare in the long run. Nevertheless, the initial phase can negatively impact bees, causing stress due to the loss of the queen and her pheromone. Moreover, queen substitution directly leads to distress for the individual bee.

On the other hand, allowing an older queen to remain can result in a decline in production over time, which affects commercial beekeepers. This highlights the need for a balanced approach. For instance, replacing the queen every 2–3 years rather than every year, or only once a certain threshold of production decline is reached, could be a viable strategy. Therefore, it is important to thoroughly evaluate the queen’s health and productivity before replacing her, as she might be capable of sustaining a strong and healthy colony for more than two or three years. As a matter of fact, the latter option may be more feasible for beekeepers attentive to bee care.

Under the heading “General Apiary Management” within the “colony management” topic, seven practices (77, 78, and 80–84) are linked to swarm prevention. We assessed these practices as having a primarily positive impact on Human Wellbeing (HW) rather than Honey Bee Welfare (HBW). This is because swarming is a natural, physiological characteristic of honey bees, and preventing it could impede their natural behaviour, potentially conflicting with definitions of animal welfare [24,25]. However, if swarming occurs and the beekeeper does not adopt proper biosecurity measures to control Varroa destructor, this could negatively affect honey bee welfare. For other variables (P, T, I, and S), we assigned a positive impact on productivity due to the avoided loss in live honey bees; regarding time consumption, preventing swarming is certainly a challenging and time-consuming task for beekeepers. Still, collecting natural swarms can be equally demanding, with added risks to human health from falls or stings during collection. Also, we assigned an either positive or negative judgement to individual and superorganism welfare. In fact, while there is a negative physiological impact, it is possible to distract bees from breeding through specific procedures, which can mitigate negative welfare outcomes.

Furthermore, practice n°78, “prevent swarming by performing colony split”, offers a beneficial solution that satisfies both the beekeeper’s and the honey bees’ needs. This involves adopting an “artificial swarming” method by splitting colonies to create new ones [26].

Despite prevention efforts, swarming is not always guaranteed to be avoided, as the colony might still swarm. For this reason, selecting apiary sites with shrubs (practice n°44) makes it easier for beekeepers to recover swarms. This is particularly important when establishing a new apiary or relocating an existing one.

Other important welfare practices in beekeeping involve taking samples for laboratory analyses (practices n°100, 137, 186, 187, 202, and 206). These analyses can be crucial for monitoring and controlling overall disease situations within the apiary, as well as assessing environmental quality. Although relevant, this operation may negatively impact individual bees, especially when disruptive samples (often involving live bees) are collected. For this reason, it is better to choose non-invasive samples whenever possible, such as hive debris, powdered sugar, wax, pollen, propolis, and honey from combs. The INSIGNIA-EU project exemplifies this approach, using non-disruptive methos to monitor environmental pollution while prioritising honey bee welfare [27]. However, while sampling for in-depth analytical studies is critical for the potential survival of the entire colony and human health, it can also support management efforts by providing long-term benefits to the superorganism or the environment.

The purpose of using a queen excluder (as outlined in practices n°88, 235, 246) is to prevent the queen and brood diseases from entering the honey supers, thereby ensuring a cleaner, purer, and safer product. While this practice benefits honey quality and honey bee health, it can be costly and time-consuming, potentially impacting professional beekeepers in a negative way.

Confining the queen within the brood chamber positively affects honey production quality, but may be stressful for the queen herself. Nevertheless, this approach is valuable for guaranteeing honey quality and reducing the spread of infectious diseases. Consequently, we assigned a negative impact (↓) to the individual bee variable (I).

Conversely, since worker bees can freely pass through the excluder to collect nectar in the honey supers, while the queen cannot, this results in the absence of brood diseases (e.g., AFB, EFB, SHB, virosis, etc.), ensuring better health of the superorganism in the long term. Therefore, the impact assigned to the superorganism variable (S) was positive (↑).

Similarly, implementing a brood interruption prior to Varroa spp. treatment (practices n°46, 161, 169, 182) is an excellent strategy not only to maximise treatment efficacy, but also to promote the long-term welfare and health of the superorganism by controlling Varroa spp. infestation levels. However, we assigned a negative impact to the individual bee variable (I) due to the potential stress and mortality risks associated with queen caging, which can result from handling or prolonged confinement. Additionally, this practice is time-consuming for beekeepers and carries the risk of bees failing to recognise the queen post-caging, leading to her potential death.

5. Conclusions

Through the One Welfare approach adopted in this study, we present a comprehensive overview of the potential impacts of beekeeping practices on honey bee, human, and environmental welfare. For instance, practices n°27, 28 and 54, which take into account the communication between local stakeholders (beekeepers, farmers, advisors, and veterinarians) to coordinate actions for preventing and controlling diseases, minimise the risk of intoxication from PPPs, and coordinate efforts for managing foraging resources, embrace all three welfare categories (HBW, HW, and EW) due to the fact that all components might benefits from this approach. This approach promotes a resilient, welfare-centred model for apiculture, where all stakeholders are considered and beekeepers can make informed decisions about hive management based on the variables they prioritise.

At the core of this methodology lies the concept of compromise, which is central to the dynamic balance advocated by One Welfare. This balance becomes evident when beekeepers, weighing various economic factors and the importance of honey bee welfare, as outlined in these practices, determine their apiary management strategies.

Our study resulted in a list of “One Welfare practices in beekeeping” that supports a holistic approach to welfare. This might represent a versatile framework applicable to other managed pollinators, such as bumblebees or insects in general, and agricultural practices after more specific research and further studies, thereby broadening the scope of the One Welfare approach and extending its comprehensive perspective beyond honey bees.

For future validation of our outcomes, we aim to organise an international expert elicitation meeting.