Explore the vast range of titles available.

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) has risen to prominence based on its promise to vastly improve environmental decision‐making and to represent nature's many benefits to people. Yet the field has continued to be plagued by fundamental concerns, leading some to believe that the field of ES must mature or be replaced. In this paper, we quantitatively survey a stratified random sample of more than 1,000 articles addressing ES across three decades of scholarship. Our purpose is to examine the field's attention to common critiques regarding insufficient credible valuations of realistic changes to services; an unjustified preoccupation with monetary valuation; and too little social and policy research (e.g. questions of access to and demand for services). We found that very little of the ES literature includes valuation of biophysical change (2.4%), despite many biophysical studies of services (24%). An initially small but substantially rising number of papers address crucial policy (14%) and social dimensions, including access, demand and the social consequences of change (5.8%). As well, recent years have seen a significant increase in non‐monetary valuation (from 0% to 2.5%). Ecosystem service research has, we summarize, evolved in meaningful ways. But some of its goals remain unmet, despite the promise to improve environmental decisions, in part because of a continued pre‐occupation with numerical valuation often without appropriate biophysical grounding. Here we call for a next generation of research: Integrative biophysical‐social research that characterizes ES change, and is coupled with multi‐metric and qualitative valuation, and context‐appropriate decision‐making. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Taking into account the perspectives of local stakeholders is essential for just and effective biodiversity conservation. Plural valuation, making visible the diverse values people hold in relation to nature, has emerged as a key approach towards better inclusion of stakeholders' perspectives. So far, plural valuation has mainly focused on positive values, leaving equally important negative values underexposed. To address this, a concrete proposal has been presented to also consider ‘disvalues’. However, accessible frameworks to help practitioners apply this concept are arguably still lacking. To address this gap, we here propose the ‘Integrated Nature Futures Framework’ (I‐NFF), where ‘integrated’ indicates joint consideration of positive and negative values. The I‐NFF draws on the popular Nature Futures Framework (NFF) to develop disvalue thinking in a more accessible form. The I‐NFF considers three perspectives (‘nature’, ‘society’ and ‘culture’), based on which something can be placed on a spectrum from positive (‘for nature’, ‘for society’ and ‘as culture’) to negative (‘against nature’, ‘against society’ and ‘in conflict with culture’), and can be represented as two mirrored triangles. Using empirical data, we illustrate various purposes for which the I‐NFF can be used: to inventory nature‐related topics ‘at play’ in a given context, to depict how people frame their overall relationship with nature or to depict how people frame specific issues. This demonstrates how the I‐NFF helps reveal value pluralism and trade‐offs, capture the reciprocity of human–nature relationships and identify where perspectives differ and share common ground. We close by discussing how the I‐NFF can enhance the inclusion of stakeholder voices in biodiversity conservation, which is indispensable for a more nature‐ and people‐positive future. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

A global system of harmonized observations is needed to inform scientists and policy-makers. Reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and averting dangerous biodiversity change are international goals, reasserted by the Aichi Targets for 2020 by Parties to the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) after failure to meet the 2010 target ( 1 , 2 ). However, there is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering regular, timely data on biodiversity change ( 3 ). With the first plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) soon under way, partners from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) ( 4 ) are developing—and seeking consensus around—Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) that could form the basis of monitoring programs worldwide.

Commemorating the 2021 ASEAN Dengue Day and advocacy for World Dengue Day, the International Society for Neglected Tropical Diseases (ISNTD) and Asian Dengue Voice and Action (ADVA) Group jointly hosted the ISNTD-ADVA World Dengue Day Forum–Cross Sector Synergies in June 2021. The forum aimed to achieve international and multisectoral coordination to consolidate global dengue control and prevention efforts, share best practices and resources, and improve global preparedness. The forum featured experts around the world who shared their insight, research experience, and strategies to tackle the growing threat of dengue. Over 2,000 healthcare care professionals, researchers, epidemiologists, and policy makers from 59 countries attended the forum, highlighting the urgency for integrated, multisectoral collaboration between health, environment, education, and policy to continue the march against dengue. Sustained vector control, environmental management, surveillance improved case management, continuous vaccine advocacy and research, capacity building, political commitment, and community engagement are crucial components of dengue control. A coordinated strategy based on science, transparency, timely and credible communication, and understanding of human behavior is needed to overcome vaccine hesitancy, a major health risk further magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The forum announced a strong call to action to establish World Dengue Day to improve global awareness, share best practices, and prioritize preparedness in the fight against dengue.

About the Authors: Matthew R. Behrend * E-mail: behrend04@gmail.com Affiliations Neglected Tropical Diseases, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America, Blue Well 8, Seattle, Washington, United States of America ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5664-0520 María-Gloria Basáñez Affiliation: MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Jonathan I. D. Hamley Affiliation: MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Travis C. Porco Affiliation: Francis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, United States of America Wilma A. Stolk Affiliation: Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Martin Walker Affiliations London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research and Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Sake J. de Vlas Affiliation: Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1830-5668 for the NTD Modelling Consortium Introduction The neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) thrive mainly among the poorest populations of the world. Onchocerciasis (a filarial disease caused by infection with Onchocerca volvulus and transmitted by blackfly, Simulium, vectors) probably provides the best example of impactful modelling, with its long history of using evidence—mostly from the ONCHOSIM and EPIONCHO transmission models [7]—to support decision-making within ongoing multicountry control initiatives (Table 1). Onchocerciasis modelling and policy impact. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008033.t001 From the start of the NTD Modelling Consortium in 2015, there have been several other examples of impactful modelling, which could be divided over three major scales of operations: (1) developing WHO guidelines (e.g., for triple-drug therapy, with ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine, and albendazole, against lymphatic filariasis [16, 17]); (2) informing funding decisions for new intervention tools (e.g., the development of a schistosomiasis vaccine [18]); and (3) guiding within-country targeting of control (e.g., local vector control for human African trypanosomiasis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [19, 20] and Chad [21]). Relative word frequencies are represented by size of the font. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008033.g002 Scoring the guidance statements Authors coded the data set individually (MRB, TCP, WAS, SJdV) and jointly (M-GB, JIDH, MW), producing five independently coded sets of data (S1 Table).

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) relies on future scenarios in its assessments of global social-ecological systems. Scenarios explicitly or implicitly embed normative positions (e.g., values for nature, nature’s contributions to people, good quality of life). Such scenario values shape how scenario narratives evolve, e.g. through driving forces, framings, or ways how decisions are legitimized within a given scenario. Initial research in futures studies has examined how scenario values depend on whose voices are included in scenario co-design. However, less attention has been paid so far to explicitly assessing the extent to which scenario values are associated with different types of scenario co-designers. Our paper expands this knowledge with a set of novel analyses building on the comprehensive review of scenarios in the IPBES values assessment. To this end, we conducted a formal archetype analysis of 257 scenarios assessed in the IPBES values assessment to identify re-appearing archetypal configurations of values and their link to the actors involved as scenario co-designers. The results show that scenarios valuing nature for itself and its benefits to societal well-being were co-designed by experts and academics less frequently than expected under the assumption of stochastic independence; on the contrary, such scenarios were co-designed more frequently than expected by governmental and community actors. The paper illustrates how archetype analysis can contribute to the validation and further development of scientific knowledge feeding into science-policy assessments. The findings are important to acknowledge how scenarios express and possibly re-enforce peoples’ normative positions, and what role values might play when scenarios get translated into real-world decisions and actions.

Oriol Mitjà * E-mail: oriol.mitja@isglobal.org Affiliations Skin NTDs Program, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Division of Public Health, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3266-8868 Michael Marks Affiliations Clinical Research Department, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, Hospital for Tropical Diseases, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7585-4743 Laia Bertran Affiliation: Skin NTDs Program, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Karsor Kollie Affiliation: Neglected Tropical and Non Communicable Diseases Program, Ministry of Health, Government of Liberia, Liberia Daniel Argaw Affiliation: Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland Ahmed H. Fahal Affiliation: The Mycetoma Research Centre, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan Christopher Fitzpatrick Affiliation: Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland L. Claire Fuller Affiliation: International Foundation for Dermatology, London, United Kingdom Bernardo Garcia Izquierdo Affiliation: Anesvad foundation, Bilbao, Spain Roderick Hay Affiliation: International Foundation for Dermatology, London, United Kingdom Norihisa Ishii Affiliation: Leprosy Research Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan Christian Johnson Affiliation: Fondation Raoul Follereau, Cotonou, République du Bénin Jeffrey V. Lazarus Affiliation: Skin NTDs Program, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Anthony Meka Affiliation: Medical Department, German Leprosy and TB Relief Association, Enugu, Nigeria Michele Murdoch Affiliation: Department of Dermatology, Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom Sally-Ann Ohene Affiliation: World Health Organization Country Office, Accra, Ghana Pam Small Affiliation: Department of Microbiology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America Andrew Steer Affiliation: Group A Streptococcal Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Earnest N. Tabah Affiliation: National Yaws, Leishmaniasis, Leprosy and Buruli ulcer Control Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon Alexandre Tiendrebeogo Affiliation: World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo Lance Waller Affiliation: Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America Rie Yotsu Affiliation: Department of Dermatology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Stephen L. Walker Affiliation: Clinical Research Department, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom Kingsley Asiedu Affiliation: Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandCitation: Mitjà O, Marks M, Bertran L, Kollie K, Argaw D, Fahal AH, et al. Research * Validating a clinical algorithm for identification of skin NTDs using key symptoms and signs. * Developing common clinical and laboratory diagnostic platforms for these diseases, which are practical in the field. * Mapping to identify their overlap to allow integrated coordinated control and treatment activities as well as health system strengthening for service delivery. * Piloting the integrated approach in one or several regions. * Better understanding of the epidemiology of these diseases including transmission and interaction with poverty and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH). * Understand community resilience and program factors that strengthen community participation.