Societal Decision Making

The legacy of historic anthropogenic disturbance can significantly affect the structure and function of contemporary freshwater ecosystems. Environmental research and management that neglect anthropogenic legacy are likely to lead to a biased interpretation of present and future ecosystem dynamics. Yet, anthropogenic legacy remains poorly considered, mainly because of the challenges associated with its identification. Synthesizing past progress in legacy research, we present a conceptual framework for the systematic identification of anthropogenic legacy. We focus on the dynamic processes occurring during legacy formation (e.g., disturbance regime, ecosystem trajectories). Based on the review of relevant case studies, we discuss the historical and contemporary sources of information (e.g., communication, cartographic, paleoenvironmental sources) that can be employed for legacy identification. Finally, we provide practical examples of anthropogenic legacy identification in real-world freshwater ecosystems. Produced in multidisciplinary collaboration, this review presents a comprehensive approach to anthropogenic legacy to foster its informed and systematic consideration in freshwater research and management.

Parasitic vector-borne diseases (VBDs) represent nearly 20% of the global burden of infectious diseases. Moreover, the spread of VBDs is enhanced by global travel, urbanization, and climate change. Treatment of VBDs faces challenges due to limitations of existing drugs, as the potential for side effects in nontarget species raises significant environmental concerns. Consequently, considering environmental risks early in drug development processes is critically important. Here, we examine the environmental risk assessment process for veterinary medicinal products in the European Union and identify major gaps in the ecotoxicity data of these drugs. By highlighting the scarcity of ecotoxicological data for commonly used antiparasitic drugs, we stress the urgent need for considering the One Health concept. We advocate for employing predictive tools and nonanimal methodologies such as New Approach Methodologies at early stages of antiparasitic drug research and development. Furthermore, adopting progressive approaches to mitigate ecological risks requires the integration of nonstandard tests that account for real-world complexities and use environmentally relevant exposure scenarios. Such a strategy is vital for a sustainable drug development process as it adheres to the principles of One Health, ultimately contributing to a healthier and more sustainable world.

Some argue that complementing climate change mitigation measures with solar radiation management (SRM) might prove a last resort to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To make a socially responsible decision on whether to use SRM, it is important to consider also public opinion, across the globe and particularly in the Global South, which would face the greatest risks from both global warming and SRM. However, most research on public opinion about SRM stems from the Global North. We report findings from the first large-scale, cross-cultural study on the public opinion about SRM among the general public (N = 2,248) and students (N = 4,583) in 20 countries covering all inhabited continents, including five countries from the Global South and five ‘non-WEIRD’ (i.e. not Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries from the Global North. As public awareness of SRM is usually low, we provided participants with information on SRM, including key arguments in favour of and against SRM that appear in the scientific debate. On average, acceptability of SRM was significantly higher in the Global South than in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, while acceptability in the ‘WEIRD’ Global North was in between. However, we found substantial variation within these clusters, especially in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, suggesting that countries do not form homogenous clusters and should thus be considered individually. Moreover, the average participants’ views, while generally neither strong nor polarised, differed from some expert views in important ways, including that participants perceived SRM as only slightly effective in limiting global warming. Still, our data suggests overall a conditional, reluctant acceptance. That is, while on average, people think SRM would have mostly negative consequences, they may still be willing to tolerate it as a potential last resort to fight global warming, particularly if they think SRM has only minor negative (or even positive) impacts on humans and nature.